Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

Middle East Prisoners of War

Mr. Dykes: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what most recent discussions he has had with representatives of the Syrian Government concerning the treatment of prisoners of war arising from the recent Middle East conflict.

Mr. Greville Janner: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will now make a further statement regarding his inquiries concerning Israeli prisoners of war in Arab hands.

The Minister of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Lord Balniel): The Syrian Chargé d'Affaires was called to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office on 12th December and was reminded of Her Majesty's Government's view that the Convention on Prisoners of War should be fully and unconditionally complied with.

Mr. Dykes: Will my right hon. Friend keep up the pressure on this question and, when the opportunity arises with the Syrian authorities, will he express the Government's grave anxiety over the Syrians' apparent unwillingness to attend the conference, beginning on Friday?

Lord Balniel: We have drawn this matter to the attention of the Syrian authorities on a number of occasions. The Syrian position is that they will not release prisoners of war until Israel complies fully with the provisions of the Convention on

Prisoners of War and the Protection of Civilians, and in particular allows civilians back to the villages from which they have been displaced.

Mr. Kaufman: Does the right hon. Gentleman refute his previous answer that a number of representations have been made, and does he confirm a statement last week by the Syrian Chargé d'Affaires that only one representation has been made by Her Majesty's Government to the Syrian authorities? Will the right hon. Gentleman call the attention of the Syrian authorities to the example of the Government of Pakistan, who repatriated prisoners of war without waiting for, or demanding, the return of territories involved in previous hostilities?

Lord Balniel: As I have said, we consider that this convention should be fully and unconditionally complied with. We have been in touch with the Syrians on a number of occasions and we continue to be in touch. I do not wish to enter into semantics with the hon. Gentleman on what constitutes representations, but we have had a number of contacts with the Syrian Government.

Mr. Walters: Does my right hon. Friend agree that ill-treatment of prisoners of war is abominable wherever it occurs? Is he aware that there have been fairly well documented reports in the Press recently that the Israelis have also ill-treated Syrian prisoners of war, as they have done Palestinians for a long time? Does my right hon. Friend agree that the only answer for everyone is to have a quick peaceful settlement? Will he comment on the present chances of such a settlement?

Lord Balniel: We have seen a number of reports alleging atrocities and ill-treatment of prisoners of war, but we have no corroborative evidence of our own to support them. The Syrians deny that they have ill-treated prisoners of war. The question of Syria's attendance at the peace conference must be a matter for the Syrian Government. We are anxious that the conference should proceed as quickly and as effectively as possible.

Mr. Faulds: In order to be even-handed will the right hon. Gentleman persist in his representations to the


Israeli Government about the implementation of the Fourth Geneva Convention dealing with civil populations in time of war, as Israel refuses to give any undertakings about this?

Lord Balniel: It is a Syrian allegation that a particular element of the Geneva Convention has not been complied with. We have no evidence of our own to corroborate it.

Mr. Faulds: The civilian population?

Lord Balniel: Syria claims that the civilian population are not allowed back to their villages. We feel that the Geneva Convention should be complied with in all its aspects.

Commonwealth Countries (British Firms)

Sir G. de Freitas: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he receives from high commissioners in developing Commonwealth countries reports on the activities of British firms carrying on business locally; and for what purpose.

Lord Balniel: High commissioners are under no standing instruction to submit routine reports on the activities of local British firms, but they do report, at their discretion, to my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs and Trade and Industry, where it is appropriate for the promotion or protection of British commercial interests.

Sir G. de Freitas: Does the right hon. Gentleman remember that three weeks ago he told my hon. Friend the Member for Salford, East (Mr. Frank Allaun) that no advice had been given to British firms in Sri Lanka about wages. Surely the right hon. Gentleman recognises that one of the reasons for having high commissioners in developing countries is expressly to advise British firms in those countries on conditions of employment?

Lord Balniel: We are satisfied that British firms in Sri Lanka pay their employees wages based on rates laid down by the Government of Sri Lanka, but advice on local employment practices is offered by our commercial representatives abroad. I think this is the best

and most effective way in which it can be undertaken.

Rhodesia

Mr. Knox: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement about relations between Great Britain and Rhodesia.

Lord Balniel: I have nothing to add to the reply I gave the House on 28th November.—[Vol. 865, c. 141.]

Mr. Knox: Will my right hon. Friend consider putting further pressure on the Smith régime to release the interned African leaders in Southern Rhodesia? Does he not think that that is a prerequisite if a satisfactory settlement is eventually to be reached?

Lord Balniel: We have always argued to the Smith régime that it is advisable that it should talk with people in Rhodesia and not detain them.

Mr. Richard: The right hon. Gentleman and the House will have noted the action taken yesterday by the United States Senate in relation to the Byrd amendment. Will the right hon. Gentleman say a kind word in favour of the United States administration? Does not the action that has now been taken in the United States in reversing its previous policy on imports of chrome re-emphasise the need not merely to continue with the policy of sanctions but, if possible, to intensify it?

Lord Balniel: I echo the hon. and learned Gentleman's words. Our purpose is to ensure that sanctions are fully implemented.

Mr. Soref: Is it not a fact that those who are interned in Rhodesia are not seeking a settlement but are seeking to have armed revolution in that country and to exterminate the white population?

Lord Balniel: That must be a matter of judgment. As I have said, our belief is that Rhodesia will not be able to evolve to legal independence unless she can reach agreement between the various communities living there.

Oil Supplies

Mr. Wall: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth


Affairs if he will make a statement on his negotiations with Arab leaders and others over the oil cut-back.

The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Sir Alec Douglas-Home): We are, naturally, in continuous touch with Arab Governments about the cutback in oil supplies. The exchanges have resulted in assurances of supplies from some countries. We have also drawn Arab attention to the detrimental effects of the oil cutback on world economies, and pointed out that these effects would not be in the interests of our Arab friends.

Mr. Wall: I welcome that reply, but does my right hon. Friend agree that the use of the oil weapon for political purposes outside the ambit of the Middle East war creates a very dangerous precedent and must be resisted?

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: Yes, Sir. We think that raw materials should not be used as weapons in war. This could spread to other materials.

Mr. Roy Hughes: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that there is now an urgent and pressing need for Israel to withdraw from occupied Arab territories, in line with repeated United Nations decisions, in order that oil supplies may be fully restored to the West?

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: I would not connect the two, and never have done. I would say that on its merits the political settlement in the Middle East has to include Israeli withdrawal and, complementary to that, security arrangements for Israel's frontiers and those of her neighbours. I would not connect the political settlement with oil. I have made it clear that our policy had nothing to do with the oil supplies but, on its merits, was that a political settlement should be brought into being.

Mr. Brocklebank-Fowler: What further joint representations have been made by leaders of the European Community countries to the Arab leaders?

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: We published a declaration of the Community on 6th November. In Copenhagen we were able to see representatives of the Arab countries and we impressed on them that they should not try to divide the European Community on these matters. We also

impressed on them the danger of pursuing their present policy too far, because it could have such wide repercussions on world trade.

Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: But was not all that diplomatic activity frustrated by the attitude of the multi-national companies? Is it not about time the Foreign Office considered opening diplomatic relations with multi-national companies rather than just with the Arab countries?

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: I believe that if the hon. Gentleman thinks about the matter he will feel that, by and large, the activities of the international oil companies have a good deal to be said for them. How long the present patterns of the international oil companies will last, we do not know. In the short term, the essential thing is to get the maximum supplies into Europe. In the longer term, relationships between producers and consumers can be worked out, and I hope that they will be.

Mr. Dalyell: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on his latest discussions with the Dutch Government on the oil shortage.

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: At the summit meeting in Copenhagen on 14th and 15th December I had full discussions of the energy problems with my Dutch and other Community colleagues.

Mr. Dalyell: In answer to my hon. Friend the Member for York (Mr. Alexander W. Lyon), the right hon. Gentleman used the phrase "a change in the pattern of the international companies". Did he discuss that with the Dutch? What did he mean by that phrase?

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: We were talking about the supply of oil through the international companies, and I was asking the hon. Gentleman to look at the benefits that flow from the present practice of the international oil companies. That may be changed at some future date, but it has not changed yet.

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, following the summit meeting and the EEC meeting which he attended, a concerted view is being taken by the EEC countries concerning the shortage of energy in Europe?

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: There is a Question on the Order Paper which deals with the summit meeting and the meeting of the EEC, and I shall come to it later.

Mr. Shore: The Foreign Secretary knows that the summit communiqué referred to immediate and effective action in the short term by the Community to meet the oil shortage problem. Does that immediate and effective short-term action include a pledge to the Dutch on oil sharing?

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: No, Sir. That has never been talked about either bilaterally with the Dutch or in the EEC. No one—including the Dutch—has talked about oil sharing. We have talked about what will happen, which is that the Commission will collect information from the members of the Community about the situations in the various Community countries, which vary enormously. We shall have this report by 15th January and we shall then be able to judge the situation. Neither the Dutch nor any other members of the Community have talked about oil sharing as such.

United Kingdom/USSR Trade

Mr. Sydney Chapman: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the talks he had in Moscow with the Soviet leaders, with particular reference to removing the imbalance in trade between the United Kingdom and USSR.

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: My visit to the Soviet Union marked a considerable advance in Anglo-Soviet relations. Our talks, which were cordial throughout, among many other subjects covered the imbalance of trade and the disparity of Western and Warsaw Pact forces, especially in Central Europe. We hope to sign a long-term economic co-operation agreement next year. As far as force levels are concerned, there are still important differences between the two sides at the Vienna talks, but we agreed to persevere in the search for a solution.

Mr. Chapman: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that reply, but does not he agree that there has been an unnecessary imbalance of trade between the USSR and the United Kingdom for a number of years? As we currently sell less than £100 million worth of our goods

and services to the USSR each year and it sells over £200 million worth of goods to us, is not it about time this gap was narrowed? In view of the balance of payments deficit, is it not right to say that we should import less from the USSR?

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: I do not think that we want to try to be restrictive. We want to increase the trade between out two countries. But I made it very clear, of course, that the imbalance should be corrected, and the Russians agreed to try to do that. A number of quite large contracts are now being considered, and they could make a considerable difference to the picture if they are awarded.

Mr. Jay: Is the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary aware that our trade deficit with the Soviet Union is about one-tenth of our deficit with the EEC?

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: That may be so, but I have never thought that statistics necessarily prove very much.

Mr. Goodhew: Did my right hon. Friend make it clear to the Soviet leaders that Anglo-Soviet relations would be greatly improved by the cessation of the supply of Soviet arms to the IRA in Ulster?

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: Yes, Sir. I have made that point to the Soviet Union before. I think that it is not necessary to make it again.

Guinea Bissau

Mr. Frank Allaun: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will now recognise the State of Guinea Bissau, formerly Portuguese Guinea.

Lord Balniel: No, Sir. It does not meet our criteria for recognition, which have been consistently applied by successive British Governments.

Mr. Allaun: Is it not a fact that 68 countries have now recognised the new State and that at the United Nations General Assembly only seven voted against? Is it not also a fact that the liberation Government controls two-thirds of the territory in that country?

Lord Balniel: I do not think that what the hon. Gentleman states as fact is correct. We believe that the PAIGC


falls far short of controlling the major part of Portuguese Guinea, in spite of its claims to do so, nor do we believe that it commands anything like the obedience of the mass of the public. We voted against the United Nations resolution because we cannot accept that a Government can be guilty of illegal occupation of, and acts of aggression against, a territory over which they are sovereign in international law.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: Is my right hon. Friend aware that in 1962 I first decided to visit Portuguese Guinea because of claims that the revolution controlled two-thirds of the territory, and it is now 1973? It is a small territory, which the Portuguese could not possibly hold without the consent of the people. They have that consent, because the people are much freer and more prosperous in Guinea Bissau than in Guinea Conakry.

Lord Balniel: I believe that my hon. Friend is right in his description of the actual physical control in Portuguese Guinea. Our information is that, apart from the sparsely populated area of the Madina Boé region, the Portuguese control the greater part of the territory, as well as the towns and the means of communication.

Middle East

Sir John Tilney: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what action he has taken at the United Nations designed to maintain peace in the Middle East.

Mr. Clinton Davis: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the current situation in the Middle East.

Mr. Mather: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the present Middle East situation, so far as British interests are concerned.

Mr. MoIIoy: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a further statement on the Middle East so far as British interests are concerned.

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: We greatly welcome the prospect of the opening of the peace conference in Geneva. We

hope that this will lead to early and rapid progress towards an overall settlement of the Middle East problem based on the full implementation of Security Council Resolution 242. We remain ready to help in any way we can in the peace-making and peace-keeping processes.

Sir John Tilney: Is it possible for my right hon. Friend to suggest that the United Nations should rent for a long term Sinai, parts of the Negev and the Golan Heights, to act as an international buffer zone between the combatants, to be policed by an individually recruited permanent peace-keeping force?

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: The idea of renting by the United Nations is a new one, but all ideas on this matter are welcome. That there has to be a buffer zone and that it has to be internationally policed, I have no doubt at all.

Mr. Davis: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that at the end of last week it was widely reported in the European Press that the Arab Foreign Ministers visiting Copenhagen were about to demand that the EEC should terminate its trade agreements with Israel? Were any such demands made and, in any event, will the right hon. Gentleman undertake not to surrender to any such demands if they are made in future?

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: The answer to the first part of the supplementary question is, "No". This question was not raised by the Arab representatives, it is Europe, and Europe alone, that determines its trade relations.

Mr. Mather: Has my right hon. Friend received any communication from the Israeli Government that guaranteed demilitarised zones are now looked upon with more favour? Is it the Government's intention to take part in a peacekeeping force, if so invited?

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: We have had no communication from the Israeli Government to suggest that they favour demilitarised zones, although it is obvious that they are giving the matter serious consideration. How the peace-keeping force is formed will be a matter for the Security Council and the Secretary-General. We are certainly willing to take part.

Mr. Molloy: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that, despite the welter


of propaganda, the basic essentials for the establishment of peace in the Middle East, in the interests of the Palestinians, the Israelis, Britain and the world, are for Israel to withdraw to her boundaries and to let the Arabs have back their lands, and for Israel, created by the United Nations, to be given an absolute guarantee? Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the problems afflicting Israeli prisoners of war in Syria and other matters can be dealt with if the basic assumptions are agreed? Will he consider going to the United Nations to put forward this proposal?

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: If necessary, I would go to the United Nations, but the peace conference will open in Geneva on Friday. The combatants will be there, with, I think, the exception of Syria, although I hope not. If we can help in any way we shall. If it were necessary for me to go to the United Nations I would do so. There are two elements that are essential to the success of the conference. The first, as the hon. Gentleman said, is withdrawal. The second—and equally important—is security for Israel and her Arab neighbours. Let us not leave out the Arab neighbours.

Mr. Cormack: Does my right hon. Friend agree that there is no question of the Government's conniving in any settlement that would lead to Israel's being ringed round by hostile neighbours? Does he also agree that our interpretation of the resolution in question is "territories" and not" the territories"?

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: The details of the settlement of boundaries must be left to the peace conference. Nobody from outside can settle those. I think it is wiser not to put any particular interpretation on the resolution at this moment.

Mr. Callaghan: Whilst we can all put forward our proposals for a solution, would it not be better to direct our efforts to getting the two sides together to discuss directly their own affairs and their relationships with each other, rather than propounding our own solutions? In view of the importance of the conference to our own interests, especially oil, what has the Foreign Secretary

done to ensure that we are adequately represented—if not at the conference, at least in the environs of Geneva?

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: I am not sure that there is any point in sitting outside the room. We shall get communications from all the parties concerned which will tell us how the conference is going on. The organisation of the conference at the start will be that the combatants will meet, the Russians and the Americans will be the co-chairmen and the rest of us will hold ourselves in reserve to help where help is necessary. We are in a position to do that as a permanent member of the Security Council.

Mr. Callaghan: Will the right hon. Gentleman reconsider his answer? Although no one need be physically present in the room, would not it be advantageous to Britain to have some high-level representation on the spot, available for consultation, to put our point of view, to see immediately what issues are coming up, and help to resolve them?

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: I will consider what is necessary. We have a very competent ambassador in Switzerland, who could, if necessary, do this job. I shall consider the right hon. Gentleman's suggestion.

Human Rights Covenants

Mr. Milne: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a further statement on Her Majesty's Government's study of the possibilities of ratifying the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and publish a list of the countries which have now ratified the covenant.

Mr. Peter Archer: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will publish a list of States which have now ratified the International Covenants on Civil and Political Rights and on Social, Economic and Cultural Rights.

The Minister of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Julian Amery): On the question of our study of the possibility of ratifying the covenants, I have nothing to add to the reply


I gave the hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Marks) on 14th December.—[Vol. 866, c. 212–3.] As at 1st December, 23 States have now ratified the covenants. I shall, with permission, circulate a list in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. Milne: I appreciate the Government's difficulties, but have not they shown extreme tardiness, in direct contrast to the speed with which they recognised reactionary régimes like those in Chile, Greece and one or two other places which I shall not name? Is it not time that the decision of 1966 received more consideration from the Government than has been given to it?

Mr. Amery: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will realise that we are very keen to press on with this, but the lawyers have to give careful consideration to all the different legal positions that prevail in some countries for which we still have responsibility.

Mr. Archer: Bearing in mind the Government's obvious lack of enthusiasm for the covenant, the fact that they permitted the 25th anniversary of the universal declaration to pass entirely without comment, and that even when they did something right and renewed the right of individual petition under the European declaration they announced the matter stealthily in reply to a Written Question, what is it about human rights that the Government find so unattractive?

Mr. Amery: I am not prepared to accept the assumption in the hon. and learned Gentleman's question. We see nothing unattractive about it. It is simply that we do not wish to put our final ratifying signature to it until the lawyers can assure us that we can implement and carry out what we put our name to.

Following is the information:
Barbados, Bulgaria, Byelorussia, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Cyprus, Denmark, Ecuador, German Democratic Republic, Iraq, Kenya, Lebanon, Libya, Madagascar, Norway, Sweden, Syria, Tunisia, Uruguay, Yugoslavia, Ukraine and the USSR.

EEC Energy Policy

Mr. Douglas: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on recent discussions regarding energy policy with the EEC.

Mr. William Hamilton: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the recent discussions in Copenhagen about the formulation of a European energy policy.

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: Hon. Members will have seen the statement issued by the Copenhagen summit meeting on 15th December, copies of which are available in the Vote Office. The Council of Ministers has agreed to meet again by 7th January. At that meeting we hope to take decisions to put into effect the provisions of the summit communiqué regarding energy policy. Meanwhile, on a voluntary basis we shall be making available to the Commission the necessary information about our own supplies to enable it to report by 15th January.

Mr. Douglas: Will the right hon. Gentleman concede that one of the mysterious factors about the situation is that the international oil companies seem to be embarking upon a procedure of sharing the crude oil coming into Europe, and that this is being done without the activation of the OECD's oil-sharing organisation which was set up in 1967? Will the right hon. Gentleman indicate the attitude of Her Majesty's Government towards the procedures adopted by the international oil companies? Do they agree with the method of sharing?

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: The obligations of Her Majesty's Government are to see to it that nothing infringes our treaty arrangements with Europe or with other parts of the world in relation to the distribution of oil. Nothing has done so, and we have taken no action that would interfere with the ordinary supply and distribution of oil.

Mr. Wilkinson: Does my right hon. Friend agree that there is the possibility of forging a relationship of great potential mutual benefit between Western Europe and the Arab oil-producing nations, especially if, like our good friends the French, we understand the importance of technical and industrial assistance for the Arab nations?

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: There is a very large question here, which is of enormous importance to relations between the consumers and the producers.


It involves much more than the production and distribution of oil. It involves investment, technology, and so on. This was raised not only in the European Community but very pertinently by Dr. Kissinger in his speech to the Pilgrims not very long ago. I think that the proper forum in which to discuss this is the OECD, which has the advantage of including not only America and Japan but Canada, which will be a very important country in the new era of oil production.

Mr. Hamilton: Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that one of the decisions at Copenhagen, if not the major one, was the need to link questions of economic union with energy policy and regional policy? Will he give a categorical assurance, anyhow, that in no circumstances will we share our North Sea resources with anyone else unless and until we get a satisfactory regional policy, and that if we get neither we shall think of withdrawal from the EEC altogether, or at least of withholding our payments to the common agricultural policy?

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: The matter of the full production and distribution of North Sea oil is under our complete control. At the European Community meeting yesterday I said that I thought it desirable that matters of economic and monetary union and matters of regional policy and energy should all be settled at the same meeting. I hope that we shall be able to do this on 7th January.

Dame Irene Ward: May I take this opportunity to thank my right hon. Friend for standing out for the regions at the recent meeting? Is he aware how grateful we are, at any rate in the region where I live and which I represent, and that we hope that he will have great success in getting his own way for us?

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. She is on to a question which certainly ought not to arouse any ribaldry on the Opposition benches. It is manifestly important for Britain, in her relations with the Community, to have a regional policy of substance. On that, yesterday, I insisted. I hope that on 7th January the Community will agree that this is right.

Mr. Callaghan: Is not it clear that the pretence is at last showing through,

that it is impossible to get an agreed European policy on such a combination as oil, monetary union, the balance of payments and political union, and that as long as the Foreign Secretary pretends to us that he hopes to get this early in January, so long will British policy itself be paralysed? Is not it time that the right hon. Gentleman removed some of these problems from the ambit of the European Community and transferred them to the OECD and that we had a real attempt to look at these problems though our national eyes while, as far as we can, combining with our neighbours in our common interest?

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: I hope that the right hon. Gentleman is too pessimistic. Of course, we shall not solve the problems of economic and monetary union or energy on 7th January. But at least we can make progress towards a European view on these matters. However, regional policy is essential to this country, and it must be adequate. The right hon. Gentleman is right, of course, when he says that we cannot solve these matters. Taking the world view, obviously the OECD is the right place in which to consider the energy problem, but we can make progress with the European Community, and I hope that we can do so on 7th January.

EEC Council of Ministers (Meeting)

Mr. Marten: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the latest meeting of Foreign Ministers of the Common Market

Mr. Deakins: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will seek a special meeting of the EEC Council before 31st December 1973.

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster will be making a statement tomorrow on recent meetings of the Council of Ministers.
At the Council meeting on 17th and 18th December it was not possible to reach agreement on the amount to be allocated to the Regional Development Fund or on proposals relating to energy


or on the next stage of economic and monetary union. It was agreed that the Council would have a further meeting to discuss these matters not later than 7th January next.

Mr. Marten: Does my right hon. Friend agree that these meetings in Europe in the last few days have really been a squalid and childish example of so-called European unity by our so-called European partners? Will my right hon. Friend assure us that he will separate the energy problem, which is extremely serious, from the other problem of begging a few more crumbs of regional aid from the European Community, and that if we cannot make progress on energy in the European Community he will then accept Dr. Kissinger's offer in his speech to the Pilgrims that we, as an independent country, should join his European energy action group? Finally, may I take this opportunity to commend the honesty of the senior British official who referred to the meetings as "Eurocrap"?

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: It is clear that my hon. Friend has read a particular headline in The Guardian. However, it must be for Ministers to use this kind of language if it is used at all.
I want to comment on one or two of the points which my hon. Friend raised. Dr. Kissinger's initiative is something on its own, and the energy question ought to be discussed in the OECD for the reason that it brings in Canada and Japan. It is incapable of solution without that.
On my hon. Friend's point about the meetings with the European Community, I do not recognise them as squalid- They are a process in which nine different countries try to harmonise their policies. They are not always successful. I have known other organisations in which they are not exactly harmonised, but nevertheless they make progress.

Mr. Deakins: Since the first year of British membership of the EEC has been an unmitigated economic disaster, will the Foreign Secretary now take action, under Articles 108 and 109 of the Treaty of Rome and Article 135 of the Treaty of Accession, to seek an urgent meeting with his colleagues to avoid the imposition of any further Common Market burdens on the British people?

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: I cannot accept the hon. Gentleman's definition of our membership as an "unmitigated economic disaster". We all recognised that we had to pay a lot in the early years, but we also calculated the great industrial advantages which there would be in later years.

Mr. Hugh Fraser: Will my right hon. Friend press even more forcefully to ensure that the oil question is taken out of the hands of the Common Market Ministers, who seem to be incapable of dealing with it—except to humiliate themselves in public in front of some Arab sheikhs in Copenhagen? Could not this matter be taken out of Ministers' hands to prevent the sort of event that occurred yesterday—namely, this question being used as a bargaining counter to veto action on regional aid? Surely the quicker this question can be taken away from the Ministers and put to the OECD the better we all shall be.

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: Yes, there could be great advantage to the European Community in its relations with the Arab producers. Europe has a lot to supply, and in matters of technology and investment we should investigate the situation with the Arab producers. The meeting between the Community and the Arabs in Copenhagen was a quite productive one. This matter must be taken further and, for the reasons I have given earlier, I believe that we must include Japan and the United States if we are to reach a sensible solution to the long-term world problem. But do not let us discount Europe's influence in these matters.

Mr. Callaghan: Since the Foreign Secretary is now sharing a glimmer of realism about the relative importance of Europe in this connection, will he comment on the failure of the regional fund yesterday? Was it not the Government's hope and expectation that our payments to the CAP would be offset by a large receipt from the regional fund? If he has not achieved that, will he consider suspending our payments under the CAP and—even more widely, in view of the continual process of unrelieved failure—will he embark on an entirely new course for co-operation within Europe through an industrial free trade area?

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: I hope that we can work towards a situation—and


this is the plan—under which, after the transitional period, Europe will be a free trade area.
So far as the regional fund is concerned, I can be positive: if the Community is to be a reality, it must have not only a common agricultural policy but a common regional policy. We are working towards this end, and hope to achieve it by 7th January.

Sir Gilbert Longden: Will my right hon. Friend be not deterred by this short-sighted ribaldry from pursuing with determination his objective of achieving ultimate European unity, which can only be for the benefit of all our people?

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: I am grateful for what my hon. Friend said. The House must face some facts. Europe is immensely powerful—we conduct 41 per cent. of world trade, and that is not a negligible amount. We also have a powerful political influence, so long as we act together. This is immensely important. I agree with my hon. Friend that there is a balance sheet to be struck, but on the political side we have been very successful up to the present. Things are more difficult on the economic side, but we must not give up hope and must work towards a common aim.

Mr. Raphael Tuck: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that the nations have got completely bogged down right at the start and that any question of ultimate European unity is complete nonsense? Would it not be best if we renegotiated immediately, or pulled out?

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: No, Sir.

Mr. Moate: Does my right hon. Friend regard as ribaldry the reported remarks of the Irish Foreign Secretary to the effect that if there were no regional fund the continued British membership of the EEC would be called into question? Will he also say whether Britain formally used the veto yesterday at the Foreign Ministers' meeting.

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: No, Sir. There is no need to use a veto when a discussion is continuing and when, as I hope, every member of the Community desires to reach a conclusion on 7th January which will produce a regional fund. The Irish Foreign Minister did not make that re

mark in my hearing; I have read it only in a newspaper report.

Mr. Lawson: Will the Foreign Secretary treat the advice given by little Scotlanders and little Englanders with the contempt it deserves? Will he bear in mind that the long-term interest of Britain—Scotland included—ties up intimately with the rest of Western Europe? Will he say that he and his Ministers will take no part in this attitude when discussing questions that affect us all so intimately?

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: I find myself in close sympathy with the hon. Member for Motherwell (Mr. Lawson). I have always argued very strongly against Scotland being a separate unit, because our strength lies in the United Kingdom. In these modern days the strength of the United Kingdom lies in a united Europe which can exercise equal influence on the United States, the Soviet Union, China and, indeed, the world.

Greece

Mr. Whitehead: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs on what grounds Her Majesty's Government recognised the new military junta in Greece on 4th December 1973.

Mr. Judd: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what communication he had with the latest military junta in Greece before recognising it on 4th December 1973; and whether he will make a statement.

The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Anthony Royle): We have recognised the new Government in Greece because they fulfil our normal criteria for recognition, which are well known. We had no communication with the Government before we recognised them on 4th December.

Mr. Whitehead: Is it not a fact that the Government recognised the previous colonels' régime in Greece after a rigged plebiscite following the illegal deposition of King Constantine, and that not even a plebiscite has taken place this time? How many other successor régimes of colonels and secret police and the like will be allowed to follow each other in Greece before we follow the lead given


by the Danes and other friends of ours in Europe and say firmly to the Greek colonels that they have no part in free European institutions, including NATO, until democracy is restored in Greece?

Mr. Royle: The hon. Gentleman will realise that we follow normal previous practice regarding recognition of régimes in Greece. In fact, in the original coup in April 1967 normal business was interrupted by the Labour Government, who resumed relations after six days. As for the EEC, I understand that most of our partners maintain that they recognise States and not, as we do, Governments. They simply continue to carry on normal diplomatic relations with the Greeks.

Mr. Woodhouse: Does the hon. Gentleman appreciate that nobody outside his Department believes in the fiction that diplomatic recognition does not confer approval? Consequently, does not diplomatic recognition help to reinforce and strengthen revolutionary Governments, and is it not time the Foreign Office devised a more up-to-date doctrine?

Mr. Royle: The policy of recognition which this country follows is based on an assessment of the facts. Neither the time it takes us to assess a situation nor our recognition of a Government implies moral or political approval, or the reverse. I am sure that my hon. Friend is aware of that fact.

Mr. Judd: Why are the Government so coy about condemning dictatorship in a police State in the West? On the question of Greece remaining a member of NATO, was not NATO brought into existence as a collective form of defence of freedom and democracy? Do not we have a collective responsibility to preserve those values within the Western Community as well as seeking to preserve Western unity against external threats?

Mr. Royle: The hon. Gentleman does not seem to be aware of what took place at the ministerial meeting of the North Atlantic Council on 10th and 12th December. The British Government share the hopes expressed at the Council meeting that the Greek Government will prepare the way for a return to democracy. We see no advantage in discussing in NATO the internal affairs of Greece. It does not help the cohesion

of the alliance and is not likely to accelerate progress towards democracy in Greece.

Ethiopia, Somalia and the Sudan

Mr. James Johnson: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when the Minister for Overseas Development last paid an official visit to Ethiopia, Somalia and the Sudan, respectively.

The Minister for Overseas Development (Mr. Richard Wood): I have not been able to visit these countries since June 1970.

Mr. Johnson: Bearing in mind that English is widely spoken throughout these territories, will the right hon. Gentleman accept that this is one of the most delicate and sensitive parts of Africa, particularly if and when the Suez Canal is opened? Will he tell the House what aid, particularly educational, is being given? May I ask whether, when he is zigzagging about between Zambia and Egypt, he will bend his steps, some time, to visit Mogadishu, where I am sure the old Somaliland connection is still present and he will receive a warm welcome?

Mr. Wood: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving an impetus to my wish to visit two of the countries that he has mentioned. I have no plans to visit Somalia at present but I hope that it may be possible to visit the Sudan and Ethiopia.

Mr. Cormack: Does the reported official Government-sponsored visit of a Punch and Judy show to Arab States come under my right hon. Friend's Department?

Mr. Wood: I am afraid not.

Crown Agents

Mr. George Cunningham: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the information about the salary of the former Director of Finance of the Crown Agents and his proposed remuneration as joint deputy chairman of First National Finance Corporation that was before him when he gave his approval for the director to take up the appointment


immediately on resignation as a member of the staff of the Crown Agents in accordance with the procedures set out in Estacode section K.

Mr. Wood: Mr. Challis's salary at the Crown Agents was £8,675 a year. I had no information about his prospective salary in private employment.

Mr. Cunningham: Will the Minister acknowledge that he has taken personal responsibility for allowing this switch to take place? If the gentleman in question had been a civil servant, does he, with hindsight, consider that it was unwise of him to do so, since the Director of Finance of the Crown Agents had been in that position over many years, placing funds amounting to millions of pounds with First National Finance Corporation before taking up a position as deputy chairman on the next day? With hindsight, does the Minister agree that it was an undesirable move to allow?

Mr. Wood: No, Sir. Hindsight has made no difference to my view. I was consulted about this matter before I expressed my view. I saw no reason to disapprove. Therefore, I share the responsibility for that decision.

Mr. Cunningham: Share?

Mr. Wood: Yes—share. The suggestion was made to me by the Crown Agent and I saw no reason to disapprove of his judgment. Having reflected on this matter, if that proposition were put to me now, I should take the same view as I took then.

Mr. Spearing: The Minister has stated that he has no knowledge of the present salary of this gentleman as joint deputy chairman of First National Finance Corporation. Does that mean that when he decided to give his permission for this appointment he did not think that the salary that that gentleman would get in his new position was relevant to the matters that he had to weigh in making that choice?

Mr. Wood: It means that I felt that it was quite wrong, when I was consulted by the Crown Agent on this matter, to base my decision in any way on a comparison of salaries. The rules in Estacode, to which I have referred, do not require any knowledge of a future salary.

Developing Countries (Trade Preferences)

Mr. Spearing: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what further aid Her Majesty's Government will give to developing countries to meet their problems arising from the introduction of the EEC scheme of generalised preferences on 1st January 1974.

Mr. Wood: I do not expect that our alignment to the Community's Generalised Preference Scheme will cause any major problems. Our bilateral aid is not primarily intended to compensate countries for difficulties arising from world trading conditions, but we always consider a country's overall economic situation when planning our aid programme.

Mr. Spearing: Will the Minister explain why he thinks that the overall position for certain countries, particularly ex-Commonwealth countries, will not be worsened? Is it not a fact that the draft regulations for the new European GPS will place certain countries, particularly those in Asia, at a disadvantage compared with their present position in the Commonwealth? Will he take steps to balance the disadvantages that they will thus suffer?

Mr. Wood: The hon. Gentleman is overlooking the Community's declaration of intent regarding the countries to which he has referred. The Community has every intention of honouring the declaration of intent that it made.

Sir Robin Turton: Will there not be a gap in the early part of 1974 with particular reference to Hong Kong, whose exports of leather goods and textiles to this country will be hampered by coming under the Community's generalised preference scheme?

Mr. Wood: We have no significant aid programme for Hong Kong, although there is a certain aid flow. Therefore, the consequences to which my right hon. Friend has directed attention do not apply in Hong Kong.

Mrs. Hart: We know that the Government are negotiating in the EEC on a number of matters concerning the developing countries, and we understand that they are seeking to negotiate rather more aid provision from the EEC to the


Asian countries which, as my hon. Friend the Member for Acton (Mr. Spearing) said, will suffer greatly from the new generalised preference scheme. Is the Government's refusal to accept the official aid target of 0–7 per cent.—unlike the other countries of the EEC—proving a considerable and serious barrier to making progress with the negotiating objective that the Government have in mind?

Mr. Wood: No. As I have pointed out on many occasions, the performance of individual Governments is far more important than any commitment they may make to a target, particularly if that commitment is made without any dale attached to it.

United States Secretary of State (Talks)

Mr. Haselhurst: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he will next make an official visit to the United States of America.

Mr. Goodhart: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement about his discussions with the Secretary of State of the United States of America.

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: Both at the NATO meeting and subsequently in London I had the opportunity of long discussions with Dr. Kissinger over a wide range of topics. As the House understands, the substance of these discussions must remain confidential, but they were very useful to us both and we found ourselves in wide agreement.
I have no plans at present to visit the United States of America.

Mr. Haselhurst: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Atlantic Alliance is facing one of its most serious crises in terms of the relationship between the United States of America and Western Europe? Should it not be an important task of the British Government, in particular during any further diplomatic encounters that may take place in the United States on the occasion of a visit by my right hon. Friend, to underline to the American administration, and perhaps to the American people as a whole, the community of interest that binds together the United States of America and Western Europe against a threat to our common defence?

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: Yes, Sir. I think that what was called the crisis in NATO was largely resolved by Dr. Kissinger's presence at the Council meeting a week or so ago.
On the community of interest between the United States, Europe and Britain, I had the opportunity to make a number of broadcasts in the United States only a few weeks ago, in which I stressed that the NATO Alliance was concerned with the security not only of Europe but essentially of the United States.

Sir G. de Freitas: When the Foreign Secretary eventually visits the United States will he remember what he said a few minutes ago about the importance of Canada, and ensure that the Canadian Government are kept closely in touch with any discussions concerning Atlantic defence?

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: This is a necessary matter of which to remind people.

Mr. Goodhart: Does my right hon. Friend realise that referring Dr. Kissinger's enormously important initiative on energy co-operation to a committee of the OECD seems psychologically to be an inadequate response? How soon will the OECD discuss this important initiative, and when can we expect some action?

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: We are in touch with Dr. Kissinger and the other members of the OECD on this matter. My hon. Friend mentioned referring this matter to a committee of the OECD. He should remember that the OECD can meet at what Dr. Kissinger, called "the level of prestigious persons" whenever necessary.

Mr. Ronald King Murray: When the Foreign Secretary next visits the United States, will he discuss with the Americans the matters likely to be raised at the Law of the Sea Conference in Caracas? Will he assure the House that preparations in his Department are now well under way to ensure the best possible presentation of British interests, particularly in regard to fishery limits?

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: Yes, Sir.

Sir H. d'Avigdor-Goldsmid: May I draw the attention of my right hon. Friend in advance to the report of the


Sub-Committee on Defence and External Affairs of the Expenditure Committee, which draws particular attention to the lack of provision in our embassy in Washington for liaison with members of Congress?

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: I hope that there is no lack of close relationship between our embassy and the members of the United States Congress. I should have thought that Lord Cromer would be the last person who would have allowed that to develop. But I take note of what my hon. Friend has said.

STATUS OF DEGREES BILL

3.31 p.m.

Mr. Thomas Cox (Wandsworth, Central): I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to regulate the granting of education degrees.
In July of this year I introduced a Bill which was identical to this Bill. In view of the evidence which I shall present of the abuses which exist in the granting of bogus education degrees, I hope, in regard to the Bill, that the Minister will now start to show much more interest and will support this long-overdue legislation which is needed to outlaw supposed colleges of education which are granting these degrees.
Following the presentation of the previous Bill, I received many letters from numerous parts of the world supporting the Bill. Copies of advertisements appearing in publications on sale in Britain and abroad, all offering education degrees from supposed colleges which are operating in this country, were sent to me. I also received a letter from the Director of Education of the Education Department of Jersey expressing concern that these supposed colleges would seek to start operating in Jersey. I have received letters from members of parliaments of countries in the Far East seeking advice on how to stop similar organisations which are already operating in their countries.
But the most important letter that I received concerning this country came from the British Council. It expressed the deepest concern about the effects of bogus degrees on people living overseas and on the reputation of British education throughout the world, in particular in

Commonwealth countries. Indeed, in that letter reference is made to the concern being expressed by the Department of Education and Science over the damage that is caused by those who operate bogus degree colleges.
I repeat to the House that it is possible to buy a supposed degree in virtually any subject. I could obtain, as could anyone in Britain, as long as I was prepared to pay the price—a very high price—a doctorate of law, of science, of letters, of music, of divinity and of commercial science. Indeed, the advertisements are headed "British Doctorates for Sale". From the arch-villain of supplying bogus degrees, Bruce Copen, who now calls himself the "Chancellor", it is possible to obtain degrees or PhDs in such subjects as biochemistry, botanic medicine, psychology, diet and nutrition, and drugless healing, to name but a few—and this highlights yet again what is happening.
One can easily visualise the damage that could be caused and, indeed, the danger, by people seeking to use such bogus degrees. People do seek to obtain employment by using these bogus degrees. Last week in the House I referred to a letter dated 2nd November 1973 from the Health Department of the State of New York, which was questioning the authenticity of a doctorate of science produced by a person seeking employment in New York. That supposed doctorate was granted in this country. Needless to say, it is worthless.
It is more difficult to prove how much money is being made by those who operate these colleges. In the New York Times of 25th July 1973 a report showed that the London Institute of Applied Research, from October 1972 until July 1973, made over 50,000 dollars, well over £20,000. That is a supposed college operating in this country. Bruce Copen, to whom I have referred, was once living in a caravan. He now lives in a 20-room house that has been valued at well over £100,000.
What is easy for me to prove is the harm that these people are causing. I have a contact with someone holding a very high position in London University and who is inundated with letters from all parts of the world, from colleges and from highly respected businesses,


asking about the value of such degrees held by people seeking employment with them. Who can blame them for being misled when one considers the names that are used by these colleges, such as the Sussex College of Technology, University House, Coventry, St. Andrew's College, and the London College of Applied Sciences. But invariably the degrees that are offered are worthless.
One other factor of concern is the spread of these colleges into countries which are now part of the European Economic Community. The links that these operators have in countries throughout the world would without doubt win glowing admiration from the Mafia. I have lists of many of these colleges and the countries in which they operate. The same names as to the supposed professors of the faculty appear time and again in these lists. Therefore, it is against that background that I seek to introduce legislation. There can be no doubt of its need. Indeed, the British Council's letter proves that. Why should anyone be allowed to destroy the reputation of British education for the money that they can make?
My Bill proposes that no organisation offering degrees would be allowed to operate in the United Kingdom unless approved and registered by the Department of Education and Science. Anyone who sought to sell such degrees would be liable to prosecution and, if convicted, to a minimum fine of £500 and, on subsequent conviction, to a minimum fine of £1,000.
Last week in the House, in reply to a Question of mine, the Secretary of State for Education and Science claimed that sufficient action had been taken by her Department by the publication of a list of approved colleges in this country which are able to award degrees. May I tell her and her advisers that they are sadly out of touch with the views of distinguished

members of the education profession in Britain if they believe that sufficient action has been taken.
The problem will not go away. The people who operate freely in this country are operating too good a thing to give it up. That is why legislation is needed, to stop the abuses and the potential damage that could be caused, but, above all, to stop the right which now exists to discredit the reputation of this country's education standards throughout the world for financial gain. That is why I beg to ask leave to introduce the Bill.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Thomas Cox, Mr. Roy Hattersley, Miss Joan Lestor, Mr. Roland Moyle, Mr. A. W. Stallard, Mr. Kenneth Marks, Mr. R. C. Mitchell, Mr. Michael Cocks, Mr. Frank Hatton.

STATUS OF DEGREES

Mr. Thomas Cox accordingly presented a Bill to regulate the granting of education degrees: and the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday, 8th March and to be printed. [Bill 56.]

Royal Assent

Mr. Speaker: I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that the Queen has signified Her Royal Assent to the following Acts:
1. International Sugar Organisation Act 1973.
2. Northern Ireland Constitution (Amendment) Act 1973.
3. Clyde Port Authority (Hunterston Ore Terminal) Order Confirmation Act 1973.
4. North Wales Hydro Electric Power Act 1973.

Orders of the Day — SUPPLY

[7TH ALLOTTED DAY]—considered.

Orders of the Day — ECONOMIC AND ENERGY SITUATION

[SECOND DAY]

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—The Prime Minister.

3.41 p.m.

Mr. Denis Healey (Leeds, East): I start with some remarks with which I think the whole House will agree. This is now, as the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition have said, the gravest situation that Britain has faced since the Second World War. Our domestic problems, however we define them, are likely to be aggravated very seriously for perhaps many years by a world energy crisis. We all agree on the nature of the energy crisis, although it is difficult to make accurate predictions about its scale. We know that the increase in the price of Arab oil is bound to make inflation worse in Britain and to widen the deficit in our balance of payments.
We do not know by how much or for how long the Arabs will cut the supply of oil below the levels on which we had been counting. We must assume that there will be cuts and that they will last for many months, and probably for many years. All over the world Governments are having to face the fact that the reces-cession in world trade which they were expecting to take place in 1974 may become a slump.
Historians, on looking back to the events of the present year, will see the Arab-Israel war of October as a turning point in the post-war history of the world, in the sense that international affairs, after having been dominated for 25 years by political and military confrontation between the Soviet and Atlantic power groups, are likely for many years to be dominated instead by economic competition among all non-Communist Powers

for limited supplies of essential raw materials.
We are conscious now of the competition for oil supplies. We may find before long that there is similar competition for tin, copper, or even food. In the last day or so we have seen two events which dramatically symbolise the revolution in world affairs. A British Government, which only last week promised in all circumstances——

Mr. J. Enoch Powell (Wolverhampton, South-West): On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it in order for papers to be distributed by an hon. Member up and down the whole of the benches?

Mr. Speaker: I did not see what was happening. I am not sure what was happening. I do not think that it is in order, except on certain specified occasions.

Mr. Healey: I was saying that the transformation in world affairs had been symbolised in the last two days by the fact that a British Government, who promised in all circumstances to put the nation's security above all other considerations, have decided to make a major cut in their planned expenditure on defence. That is a cut which the Labour Party welcomes and wishes had gone further. A British Prime Minister, who staked his political career on Britain's entry into the Common Market, has now threatened to wreck the Common Market unless he is able to keep full control of Britain's energy supplies. That, too, we welcome.
Those two facts mark a major change in the world situation and inevitably in the reaction of Governments to the situation. I think that we can all agree that there will now be a much harsher and more difficult climate in which the United Kingdom will have to operate. We know that in many respects the change in the world situation may bring a hitherto unexpected revolution in our prospects as a member of the world community before 10 years are out. By the end of the decade oil from the Celtic seas—[HON. MEMBERS: "The North Sea."] No, in both seas. The oil from the Celtic Seas, by the end of the decade, will have transformed the relative weight of the United Kingdom in world affairs. The problem is to emerge from the next few years with the economic capacity to take advantage


of our new energy supplies and with the fabric of our society intact.
I hope that no hon. Member will dispute that that is essentially the nature of the problem that faces us. It is a short-term problem by historical standards, but a grave one. Unfortunately, we face the immediate future far weaker than any of our competitors in the world community. I shall deal with the economic aspects of our problem. I must begin by recording that a Government who inherited an ideal springboard for steady and sustained growth in Britain have contrived in three and a half years to produce disaster in almost every major aspect of our economic activities.
The growth of our economy, which has been the justification of all the Government's policies, has fallen in the last three months to an annual rate of under 3 per cent. Investment, which is the key to growth, is still more than 20 per cent. below the level of 1970. In the last two months our balance of payments deficit has been running at a rate of £3,000 million a year. That was before any but the most minute impact of the increased price of Arab oil had affected our trade figures. We have seen the pound devalued by 18 per cent. of its value three years ago or, indeed, 18 months ago in terms of a weighted average.
Above all, the Government's borrowing requirement is standing at over £4,000 million in the current year. As a result of all those factors, inflation in Britain is running at an all-time high. In the first year of the so-called counter-inflation policy the Government now tell us that the retail price index is well over 10 per cent. higher than the level at which it stood a year ago. It is well above the post-tax rise in national earnings over the same period.
The Chancellor and the Prime Minister have talked in recent days about the country's need to accustom itself to no increase in its standard of life in the coming year. The overwhelming majority of the population saw no increase in its standard of life in the past 12 months, in spite of the fact that there was a 4 per cent. increase in the nation's wealth. During the coming year the standard of life of the average British family is certain to fall well below the level at which it stood in 1972.
That is the situation which the nation faced before it became aware of the full dimensions of the energy crisis. Of course, the oil crisis makes the situation worse in almost every respect, and particularly our balance of payments deficit. I should like to ask the Government—I gather that the Chancellor is to conclude the debate this evening—how they propose to deal with their existing deficit and with the enormous increase in the balance of payments deficit which is certain to follow, at least for the next six months or so. At present, they are seeking to protect sterling partly through interest rates, which are highly inflationary and damaging to investment—do the Government think that they can push them higher?—and partly by encouraging public authorities to borrow abroad in the Eurocurrency market at interest rates which are up to three times as high as the Government would have to pay if they were borrowing from the IMF.
Indeed, this policy of foreign borrowing—I understand that over £1,000 million has been borrowed since last March—is likely to impose on us an interest burden in foreign expenditure of at least £2 million a week from the beginning of next month. Do the Government propose to increase this public authority borrowing on the Eurocurrency market, or will they go to the International Monetary Fund, or seek to arrange support from foreign central banks? If, as I suspect they will be forced to do, they choose the latter courses, what sort of price will they have to pay in terms of foreign control and monitoring of our monetary affairs?
What I think the Government are finally recognising is that in many dimensions of the new economic crisis facing us, their future and the whole future of their policy will depend on international agreement—international agreement to support the pound, international agreement to avoid competitive deflation, international agreement to avoid an interest-rate war, international agreement above all, to control the short-term capital movements which are certain to be vastly expanded by the injection of Arab oil revenues into the international currency scene. In this period, when international agreement is likely to be the foundation and precondition of success in many fields of economic


policy, the Government's international influence stands at an all-time low——

Mr. Nicholas Ridley: The right hon. Gentleman has said that international agreement is very important. Will he agree that European agreement is at least a first step towards international agreement? Why has his party shunned all European involvement?

Mr. Healey: I am coming to that point. If I may echo the words of the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell), that shows the unwisdom of giving way in the middle of an argument. The fact is that the international agreement which we require must be world wide. It must include the United States and Japan, as well as the European countries. Indeed, in many respects we require American support far more than we require support from across the Channel. But to answer the hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley), let us look at the facts. Our relations with the United States have not been worse at any time since the Suez War in 1956, when, again, it was the actions of a Conservative Government which ruined transatlantic relations, and the temperature of our relations with all but one of our European neighbours now stands at many degrees below zero. The fact is that our only friends in the world today are those we made by grovelling, namely, the French Government and the Arab Governments. But the Prime Minister will soon learn that though a poodle may make friends, it has a very limited capacity to influence people.
The situation which I have described—and I do not believe that any hon. Member on either side of the House can dispute that the broad facts I have outlined are correct—was the background to the statement which the Prime Minister made last Thursday and the statement which the Chancellor made on Monday. This country faced a national emergency which required national unity in a national approach. There were three major areas in which this country needed decisive action. First, and most important and urgent, we needed measures to take immediate action on the problem of inflation and to curb and reduce the balance of payments deficit. Secondly,

the measures which we took to deal with the immediate problem of prices and the balance of payments had to be compatible with the need to maximise our capacity for growth through the best possible use of our diminished energy resources. Thirdly, there was the need to put more of our reduced output into investment and exports—a need that was recognised on both sides of the House—which made a fall in the nation's living standards inevitable in the coming year.
It was vitally important that the sacrifices which are inevitable in this country for at least a year to come should be fairly shared according to the principle that those best able to bear the burden must carry the largest percentage of its weight. Many of us believed, between the Prime Minister's announcement on Thursday and the Chancellor's announcement on Monday, that the Government would announce this week proposals to meet these needs, and I think that we were ready to sink personal or party differences in a united effort to deal with what we saw as a national problem. But the fact is that the Chancellor's proposals were a disastrous failure by every test.
To take the first requirement of immediate action to deal with inflation and the balance of payments, the only measures that he put before us on Monday which were relevant to this immediate problem were the restrictions on hire purchase and controls on credit. We welcomed these so far as they went, in spite of the burdens that they would impose on many ordinary families, but of course they will have a very limited effect. I hope that the Chancellor will tell us how much demand he expects these measures to take out of the economy, and how fast, in the immediate months. But what I cannot understand of a Government who we thought were aiming at national unity is that having imposed these Draconian restrictions on the borrowing of the average family, the Chancellor did nothing to withdraw or reduce the tax relief on loan interest for-the better off, which has undoubtedly been responsible for a major part of the inflationary demand in this country in recent years.
The only other relevant proposal for dealing with inflation and the balance of payments that he made on Monday was the enormous package of public expenditure cuts, totalling £1,200 million. As I


think he admitted when he spoke to us on Monday, those cuts are not likely to bite, certainly not in full, for up to a year—and let us face the fact that the Government's record of success in controlling, or indeed in predicting, Government expenditure is so appalling that no one can have the slightest confidence in such intentions which they announce so far ahead.
Mr. Peter Jay has stated some of the relevant facts this morning in The Times. During the last week, estimates have been given to the Public Expenditure Committee suggesting that there may have been a £1,500 million shortfall in the Government's estimated expenditure on public building and capital account during the current year. Although I know that the Treasury was prepared to dispute the exact figure, it was unable to convince the Committee that its adviser had been incorrect in predicting a shortfall at that level; nor was it prepared to give any alternative estimate of what the level really was.

Mr. J. Bruce-Gardyne: As the right hon. Gentleman recognises, the position was that one professional adviser to the Public Expenditure Committee produced his estimate that there would be a shortfall of £1,500 million. The Treasury pointed out that that estimate was based purely on a projection of the first quarter's figures. It disputed the conclusion that was reached and the Public Expenditure Committee itself did not express any opinion.

Mr. Healey: That is precisely what I have just told the House. If the hon. Member had no more to contribute to our discussion than that I wonder why he bothered to intervene.
This estimate was given and no alternative was offered by the Treasury. Moreover, a couple of days later there was a Government request for £800 million of Supplementary Estimates because in other respects their expenditure was expected to be considerably higher than estimated. If we add the two changes in Estimates together, we find that the combined error in the Government's projections of expenditure this year is nearly twice the planned saving of £1,200 million put before the House on Monday.
Let us assume that the expenditure cuts are actually carried out. Here we must investigate the second main requirement that I have mentioned, namely, to make the best use of the nation's diminished resources in order to achieve maximum growth in capacity during the next few difficult years. If these cuts are carried out, many of them will make the nation's problems worse, not better. We must maximise growth, particularly investment. We know that industry now faces serious constraints on supplies of energy and other materials, particularly steel, yet the Chancellor proposes to subject the steel industry to a major cut in its planned investment. We must reduce our dependence upon Arab oil, yet far from rationing the consumption of petrol by the private motorist, the Chancellor has chosen to make cuts in public transport, in the railways, in the tubes, in the buses and in freight carriage by road. The Chancellor has chosen to put up the price of coal, gas and electricity—our indigenous fuels—yet he refuses to increase the tax on petrol, of which we are likely to be seriously short in the coming year.
It is clear, particularly from the Chancellor's party political broadcast on Monday, that he chose cuts in public expenditure for one reason above all. He thought he could persuade people that they had got off scot free through the Government cutting their own expenditure. Yet, apart from major redundancies and short time in the construction industry, engineering and aerospace, which will follow directly from his proposals, every family in Britain will suffer from the increases he plans in rates, coal, electricity and gas. Tens of millions of families in Britain will suffer from the overcrowded classrooms which will result from cuts in the school building programme. Millions of families will suffer from the cuts in expenditure on old people's homes. Tens of millions will suffer through having to wait far longer at the bus stop or on the platform of the tube station for the public transport in which investment has been cut. In addition there will be lay-offs throughout industry as a result of the shortages of steel.
That is a very odd way for a Government to deal with the problems created by the energy shortage. The plain fact is that ordinary families will suffer far


worse than the better off, far worse than the surtax payers, from all the measures which I have described. Let us make no bones about it. The Chancellor has admitted that the country as a whole will suffer a serious and substantial cut in its standard of life in the coming year. In such a situation it was absolutely imperative that the right hon. Gentleman should have attempted to mend some of the social divisions opened by Government policy in their first three years by a genuine attempt to redistribute the nation's wealth and income.
The Chancellor could have increased tax on luxuries such as fur coats, wines and brandy to subsidise the basic foods, but he chose not to do so. He could have withdrawn tax relief on second homes. He could have reduced tax relief on mortgages by limiting it to those paying the standard rate of income tax, and he could have used the money thus obtained to reduce rents and mortgages for the average family. He chose not to do so. The only measure which he adopted in this direction was to take £35 million from surtax payers, who have already received over ten times as much in the last three years through tax changes and the disaggregation of wives' and children's income.
The Chancellor plans to meet his deficit not by taxation, which could be distributed according to the capacity to pay, but by letting inflation rip so that people pay more tax although their living standards are falling, and so that the purchasing power which remains after tax is mopped up by rising prices. This is the economic strategy behind the proposals put forward by the Chancellor on Monday and it is a strategy calculated to widen all the gulfs which already separate the components of our national community.
There is one final weapon in the Government's economic armoury—the three-day week in industry. This will mean a colossal fall in the earnings of ordinary families—a fall of £18 a week for the average wage earner. It will mean millions out of work and hundreds of millions of pounds worth of wealth thrown away every week. This is all because of the Prime Minister's stony, limpet-like attachment to the minutest

details of phase 3, which was devised in a totally different situation and based on assumptions long since proved mistaken—a policy which the Government themselves have already torpedoed this week by increases in the cost of products of the nationalised industries.
If the Prime Minister wants a statutory incomes policy he could at least have done what the Labour Government did in the late 1960s and what Sir Stafford Cripps did in the late 1940s. He could have treated manpower shortages in vital industries as justification for exceptional increases in wages. He will have to do so because there is no alternative. With men leaving the pits this year at twice the rate of last year, and with the coal in the ground ready to be dug, he will have to pay the rate required to obtain the men to dig that coal.
But as always the Prime Minister is fighting the last war long after he has lost it. He is fighting it on a slogan of unconditional surrender, a strategy which has always proved disastrous. What is even more serious than that, however, is the desire of some of his right hon. Friends, especially the Chancellor of the Exchequer, to fight the next war against the working people of this country. In the last three days the Chancellor has presented the economic crisis in a way which is deliberately calculated to inflame class feeling, to rouse the suburbs against the cities, the middle class against the working class. He has chosen to divide the nation in order to unite the Tory Party.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer has shown no concern for the crisis facing the people of Britain. He has been concerned only with immediate party advantage. He is not the first political leader to base his policy on the slogan of, "After me the deluge". He should remember what happened to his royal predecessors in pre-revolutionary France. If only he gives the British people a chance to pronounce a verdict on his conduct of his responsibilities and the attitude towards the British nation which lies behind that conduct, he and all those who think like him will be swept into the dustbin of history by a tidal wave of popular disgust.

4.10 p.m.

The Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. William Whitelaw): I must apologise, Mr. Speaker, for not rising immediately to speak. I did not realise that the right hon. Gentleman had finished.
I should like to begin by agreeing very much with one of the things which the right hon. Gentleman said at the start: it is perfectly clear that this country in the years immediately ahead will have to operate in a different and difficult climate due to effects and affairs beyond our shores.
I believe that we must consider these problems and their effects on what we do at home quite calmly, without panic or rancour of any sort. I should have thought that that was a truth that was worth bearing in mind on both sides of the House. I am entitled to say just that to some of the things that the right hon. Gentleman said at the end of his speech. It is in that spirit that I intend to deal with the industrial situation at home because that is the central part of my speech. I know the right hon. Gentleman will understand my position if I do not deal with the wider economic issues, but it is right to look at our problems at home in the context of the difficult situation that we shall have to face from outside.
We are today faced with three serious disputes—in the coal mines, on the railways and from the electrical power engineers. I wish to deal in detail with each one of these in turn, but before I do so I must repeat what my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said yesterday. The regrettable action that we have had to take to limit electricity supplies to industry is not directed at anyone on strike.

Mr. Neil McBride (Swansea, East): On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The right hon. Gentleman mentioned three disputes and then referred to people on strike.

Mr. Speaker: Order. That is a comment on what the Minister said. It is not a point of order.

Mr. Whitelaw: I said that these measures were not directed at anyone on strike. That is the technically correct phase, but if by any chance I suggested that there were people on strike in these

current disputes I was wrong and I apologise to the hon. Gentleman and the House.
Nevertheless, it remains the fact that these measures are in no way directed at anyone in that sense. They are not, as the right hon. Member for Bristol, South-East (Mr. Benn) suggested, psychological warfare of any sort or kind. They are measures of common prudence. No Government can stand aside and take no action and allow stocks of coal and oil at the power stations to run down to danger levels. If they did, they would rightly be accused of a grave dereliction of duty.
Industrial action in the mines and on the railways has made these cuts inevitable. It is true that even if the industrial action were to stop, we should still face the economic problems resulting from an oil shortage and increased oil prices, but the three-day working and other restrictions would not be required.
It is fairly argued, "What are the Government doing on the other side of the coin? How are they trying to settle these disputes?" That is the task into which I have found myself thrown in at the deep end. [An HON. MEMBER: "Can the right hon. Gentleman swim?"]—I may cause a considerable tidal wave, but I can just swim.
To turn to more serious matters, our nation has never thrived on nor, indeed, relished confrontations of any sort. The vast majority of our people want only to get on with their jobs in peace, and rightly so. It is asked why these disputes have arisen. We must seek the answer against the background of what must surely be the twin objectives of any British Government, namely, the maintenance of full employment on one hand and, on the other, the vital need to control inflation.
The right hon. Gentleman was perfectly correct when he talked, perhaps in another context also, but certainly in this context, about the need to take action on inflation. In our present situation of an oil shortage and rising oil prices there is a danger that, as a nation, we shall stoke up inflation by continuing to pay ourselves more—sometimes substantially more—than we are earning. That state of affairs could make the situation all the more dangerous.
If we decided to take the easy course and pay ourselves as a nation what we do not earn, our prospects of continuing to make our living abroad would be poor indeed. The effects on output and employment at home would be serious, and it is against that background that I wish to look individually at the three particular disputes confronting us.
The first concerns the Electrical Power Engineers' Association. I do not wish to make any detailed statement at this stage—[HON. MEMBERS: "Why not?"]—I am about to explain exactly why not. As the House will be glad to know, delicate negotiations in search of a settlement are now in progress between the Electricity Council and the EPE.

Mr. Eric S. Heffer: About time, too.

Mr. Whitelaw: Naturally, we must all hope that these negotiations will lead to a successful outcome.
I saw the EPE representatives on Monday. They explained to me the sense of grievance that they feel, but at the same time I found them a public-spirited and responsible body of men who wish to find a way out to a settlement. I am glad, as I should have thought the whole House would be, that in the negotiations they have responded as they have done.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: They should make the right hon. Gentleman Prime Minister.

Mr. Whitelaw: No one can be sure that these negotiations will succeed, but it is at least satisfactory to the House that the negotiations have started and it is to be hoped that they will produce a satisfactory result.

Mr. Harold Wilson: I am sure we all hope that these negotiations will be successful, but can the right hon. Gentleman say whether, if the report of the Pay Board on this anomaly in relation to other electrical engineers had been ready on time, it might have been possible to get negotiations going earlier and by now have arrived at a settlement? Is not the delay of a month serious in this context?

Mr. Whitelaw: I do not think so, but I accept that the right hon. Gentleman

and I have the same interest, namely, that now that negotiations have started we wish them to come to a successful conclusion.
I now turn to the ASLEF dispute, which arises in different circumstances. It is not, as Mr. Buckton has made plain, a dispute about stage 3 at all. It arises from a series of complex negotiations on a pay restructuring involving all the railway unions and British Railways. Two of the unions, the NUR and the TSSA, are still in negotiation on the employers' proposal and only ASLEF has taken industrial action.
Attempts have now been made from three quarters to get this action stopped. The right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition appealed to ASLEF not to inconvenience the public during the Christmas period. I saw the ASLEF executive last week and told its members that, in my view, the right course was to refer their difference for arbitration by the Railway Staffs National Tribunal whose chairman, Dr. McCarthy, was recently appointed with their approval. This is the next step in the procedure to which they have long been a party.
Over the weekend the General Secretary of the TUC, Mr. Len Murray, intervened in this dispute, and I welcome his intervention. As I understand it, he was seeking to bring the parties together in informal discussions under Dr. McCarthy's chairmanship. In preliminary discussions, the Railway Board indicated its willingness to accept such a proposal, but made clear its position that, since the industrial action by ASLEF was in breach of the agreed procedure, that action should cease and normal working be resumed before such talks took place. As I understand it, that was the proposition which Mr. Murray put to the ASLEF executive. In the event, the executive refused to accept that its action should be called ofi before such discussions took place.
The right hon. Member for East Ham, North (Mr. Prentice) was reported in The Times on Monday as saying:
I feel there is no justification at all for the action they are taking. They have arbitration machinery available to them under a new chairman, who was nominated by the unions, and if they have confidence in their case they ought to take it to arbitration.
I share the right hon. Gentleman's view. I sincerely hope that the ASLEF executive, which explained its position plainly


and reasonably when it came to see me, will review its position in the new circumstances, cease its action and return to put its case within the procedure available to it.

Mr. Reg Prentice: The right hon. Gentleman quoted my view, which I hold strongly. He will recall that in that article I gave some advice to him and his colleagues. I said that they would be in a better position to appeal to the unions for moderation if they did certain other things, such as repealed the Industrial Relations Act, imposed a stricter control on prices and froze all rent increases. Having quoted part of what I said in that article in The Times, I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will comment on some other parts of it.

Mr. Whitelaw: The right hon. Gentleman is very fair, and I take the point that he makes. I was not going to comment further on the points referred to by the right hon. Gentleman. I take the point made by the right hon. Gentleman, and I agree. I shall consider further what he said.

Mr. Sydney Bidwell: As a former railway worker, I want to help the right hon. Gentleman. On the possibility of getting the Railway Staffs National Tribunal procedure under way, will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that, historically, all three railway unions have sometimes used that machinery, and at other times have not done so? Its use is not axiomatic. It depends upon the prevailing mood, and the thought that the dice may be loaded against them.

Mr. Whitelaw: I have occasionally heard right hon. and hon. Members say that they regretted having given way, but on this occasion I do not. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, with his considerable experience of the railway industry, for intervening. I am prepared to bear in mind what he said and to consider the point that he put to me.
It would not be my desire to deny any hon. Member a little pleasure at any time, but I think that I ought to remind the House that if I cannot proceed with some serious matters that I wish to put forward it will mean that

I shall take longer with my speech than I should, and that will shut out others who wish to make a contribution to the debate.
I now turn to the miners' dispute. It is suggested by some that this dispute is due to a rigid attitude on the part of the Government in carrying out the counter-inflation policy approved by Parliament. That is simply not true. In the same way as all previous Governments have done, the present Government are standing up through this policy for the interests of the whole country against the evils of inflation. That has been the position of all Governments, including the Labour Government.
The right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition and others are now calling for more flexibility in dealing with the miners' wage claim. I think one has to ask oneself very carefully—as I know they do—exactly what they mean by that. Do they really suggest that it is possible or sensible for us to be planning to pay ourselves more at a time when, owing to the oil situation, we are bound to be earning less? That was the point made by the right hon. Member for Leeds, East. If they are not suggesting that—and I cannot believe that they are—then flexibility can only mean some groups of workers having more and others having to accept less.
No one can describe the present counter-inflation policy as rigid. Indeed, as my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said yesterday, more than 2¾ million workers have already accepted arrangements under it. The policy has a considerable element of flexibility. Under it—and I believe quite properly—the miners are getting preferential treatment under the present proposals. Of course it is true that in the current energy situation we need miners. Of course it is true that they have a difficult and dangerous job which few of us in this House would like to do. Of course it is true that the miners are patriotic people who have served our country well in peace and war, and that has been recognised widely by my right hon. Friends. [Interruption.] My right hon. Friend does not need to hang his head.
I believe that the counter-inflation policy has recognised the country's need


for more coal. That need has been recognised by the present Government ever since they came to office. It has to be remembered that during the decade of the 'sixties the level of miners' average earnings fell from 7 per cent. above the average in manufacturing industry at the beginning of the decade to 3 per cent. below at the end of it. Wilberforce restored their position in 1972, only for the inflationary settlements which followed in other industries to erode it again rapidly, until the standstill had to be introduced. The NCB's current offer would more than restore the Wilberforce position and that relativity would be underwritten by the Government's counter-inflation policy.
Let me repeat that the NCB's current offer amounts in total to £44 million, and that it represents an average increase of over 13 per cent. in miners' earnings, with the possibility of another 3½ per cent. through an efficiency payments scheme. It is this offer—one of the best ever made in the history of coalmining—which is at present being rejected by the mine-workers' union.
I have arranged to see the national officers of the NUM tomorrow to discover how they now view their position in the present circumstances. I know that this is a very difficult problem. We cannot expect a quick and easy solution. But we must all work for a settlement within the terms of the policy approved by Parliament. Such a solution must be found soon both in the national interest and in the interest of the long-term future of the coalmining industry, which the Government have already done so much by their investment policies to secure.

Several Hon. Members: Several Hon. Members rose——

Mr. Whitelaw: I see that three hon. Members representing the mining industry have risen, but I can give way to only one of them. I give way to the one who rose first.

Mr. J. D. Concannon: I am sorry to interrupt, but the right hon. Gentleman has spoken about relative wage rates in the mining industry and about the Wilberforce award bringing wages up to date. Last week the Chancellor of the Exchequer gave me a

Written Answer about certain coal fields where the average wage of a face worker in 1957 was £18·87. He said that for that worker to have the same relative income last March his average wage would have had to be £54·99. Therefore, the Wilberforce award did not bring miners back to the 1957 level. The relative wage rates of all underground and surface workers between then and now has remained exactly the same. That was the answer from the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Therefore, either the workers were overpaid in 1957 or they are underpaid now.

Mr. Whitelaw: I should like to stick to the facts which I have given about the claim, which are perfectly correct and ought to be put on the record. The exact details are matters which can easily be discussed. I am looking at the overall position under the counter-inflation policy, which has been clearly stated and which can be justified as giving the miners a very preferential position compared with workers in other industries.

Several Hon. Members: Several Hon. Members rose——

Mr. Whitelaw: I have already given way to one hon. Member representing the mining industry, and I shall not give way further.
If the present arrangements were to be further changed—because of the new energy situation and current shortages—to the miners' advantage, even more than under the current policies, let us be perfectly clear that other trade union leaders would have to underwrite that position. They would have to accept substantially less for their members. They would have to declare that they would accept leaving the miners as a special case compared with their own members, thereby making sure that the miners' relative position in the wage scale was effectively maintained. They would have to make it clear that in negotiations they would not seek to follow the miners' lead. We are all aware of the difficulties which would face any trade union leader in giving an assurance of that sort.
The Leader of the Opposition's first law of inflation was that one man's wage increase was another man's price increase. There is a second law, which applies all too frequently, that one man's wage increase is another man's wage claim.
I hope I have shown that Her Majesty's Government will continue to do everything in their power to solve these difficult industrial disputes within the confines of stage 3 of the counter-inflation policy, which is fair to the community as a whole. We in this House must never forget that we guard the interests of many people who have no organisation to speak for them. They, like all of us in all parts of our society, have a vested interest in defeating inflation.
That is what is at stake in the present crisis. In some quarters it has been suggested that the cost of settling the dispute on the terms demanded would be less than the cost of the emergency measures which we have been compelled to take. This is false arithmetic. The true balance is to be found in the cost to the country of an acceleration of inflationary wage demands across the board.
Those who advocate peace at any price, when faced with any difficulty, may buy a temporary respite from trouble, but they will have taken another step on the road to inflationary disaster and so to the undermining of our democratic society. Equally, those who thirst for confrontation and see the problems——

Mr. Alex Eadie (Midlothian): Cut out the electioneering and solve the problem.

Mr. Whitelaw: —as an occasion for a battle within our society are surely not in tune with the real and abiding mood of our British people.
I have not always agreed with my right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell). But when yesterday he said "reconciliation there must be be" he was surely right. Indeed, as my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said yesterday, our actions as a Government speak far louder than all the words of the Labour Party.

Mr. Harold Wilson: While the right hon. Gentleman is busy agreeing with his right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell), how does he reconcile what his right hon. Friend said with the reported statement of the Lord President to a Tory audience that "We are engaged in a struggle with the miners and the engine drivers"?

Mr. Whitelaw: I still maintain that it was a perfectly fair point which my right hon. Friend the Lord President was making. No one is seeking a confrontation. The confrontation to which my right hon. Friend was referring was certainly none of his, or this Government's, seeking in any way. It is to turn history and facts on their head for the right hon. Gentleman to pretend that it is.

Mrs. Renée Short: What about the cost of living?

Mr. Whitelaw: With regard to reconciliation, as my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said yesterday in the last 18 months he and my right hon. Friends concerned have had the most intensive and detailed discussions with the CBI and the TUC that any Government have ever had. That is a basis on which we should stand. Many of the policies put forward have been pursued, and can be seen to have been pursued, as my right hon. Friend pointed out yesterday.
Nor can anyone deny that the measures taken by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer are designed in the same way. There has been action against property speculators. It is considerable action. There has been action through the 10 per cent. surcharge to ensure that the richest in our society bear their share of the burden at a time of national crisis. [Interruption.] The Opposition shout and bellow and make a lot of noise because they do not like these facts, because they know they are true.
There has been no imposition of indirect taxation which would put up prices. There has been no increase in direct taxation on the lower and middle-income groups.
In the last fortnight many of these policies have been urged on me by various trade union leaders, and I can point to the fact that many of the points have been met. Of course, it will be said "Oh yes, but others have not". Such is life. The Opposition will say that the measures do not go far enough. They do not want to see us have reconciliation. They want—[Interruption.] The longer I seek to show that a policy of reconciliation is right, and the more the Opposition shout and laugh, the more I know that it is what they do not want.

Mr. Denis Howell: Mr. Denis Howell (Birmingham, Small Heath) rose——

Mr. Whitelaw: I am sorry, but I will not give way. I am just coming to the end of my speech.
I can only say that I do believe in reconciliation, as do my right hon. and hon. Friends. I do not believe in confrontations, and nor do my hon. and right hon. Friends. Our position on that is clear
What we have done, and the proposals we have put forward, certainly justify a helpful response from our trade union leaders. No one would deny that we face grave difficulties. Both in this country and throughout the world, democracy is threatened in various ways. We in Britain can meet the threat from outside and overcome it, if we can show again those qualities of patience and determination which arc, fortunately, part of our national heritage. I have sufficient faith in our country to believe that we shall.

4.42 p.m.

Mr. David Marquand: The House has rarely been presented with a more remarkable change of front, in presentation and style, if not in content, than the difference between what we heard yesterday from the Prime Minister and what we have just heard from the Secretary of State for Employment. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will not think me impertinent if I say that I hope he will bear in mind the advice given to Winston Churchill by Lloyd George in the 1940 debate on the Norwegian disaster, when Winston Churchill stood at the Dispatch Box defending the policies of the Chamberlain Government. Lloyd George warned him not to allow himself to be used as an air raid shelter to protect his right hon. Friend. I would say the same to the right hon. Gentleman. I think that he may become an asset to this country in due course if he does not indulge in too much protection of that kind.
The House agrees that we face perhaps the gravest emergency the country has ever faced in peacetime. In normal circumstances, the whole House would accept what the right hon. Gentleman said at the beginning of his speech, that a Government facing a national emergency of this sort are entitled to ask the whole nation to rally behind them, and

to ask for a cessation of partisan squabbling. The trouble is that the approach taken by the Secretary of State is not that taken by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. We are unfortunately debating the proposals put to the House by the Chancellor, which violate what the Secretary of State said at the beginning of his speech.
If a Government expect the nation to rally behind them in facing a national emergency, the Government are under an obligation to approach that emergency with candour, to explain to the people exactly what the emergency is and why it came about, and to put forward policies that are likely to deal with the emergency in a way which will unite the country.
In the Chancellor's statement on Monday there was no approach of that kind. There was a total absence of candour. The Chancellor pretended then that the crisis with which his measures were designed to deal had been caused solely by the industrial action of the miners, the train drivers and the power engineers. The House knows that that cannot be so. The Chancellor said that it was necessary to deflate home demand by the amount in question because of the three-day working that would take place in the new year. That three-day working will last either for a long time or for a short time. If it lasts for a long time, the amount of deflation caused in the economy by the three-day working itself will be so much in excess of anything this country has ever experienced before that to say that it is necessary to deflate demand by an additional £1,200 million is like trying to apply leeches to a corpse. If the three-day working lasts for only a short time, as the Government presumably hope, the public expenditure cuts will not start to come into effect until the three-day working is already over.
We all know the truth. The right hon. Member for Taunton (Mr. du Cann) let the cat out of the bag yesterday, as he often does in our debates, when he said that the country was already facing a severe and deteriorating balance of payments situation, and that the measures announced by the Chancellor on Monday would have had to be announced in any event, whether or not there had been a war in the Middle East and whether or not there had been any overtime ban by


the miners. We all know that that is true.
If the Government expect the nation to rally behind them in the present emergency, the least they can do is to tell the people that truth. The fact is that the Chancellor's policies were in ruins long before the war in the Middle East started, and he has found a way out by being able to blame industrial action for his troubles. No doubt he is thanking his lucky stars he was able to do so.
Why was the balance-of-payments situation deteriorating? Part of the reason was the explosion in world commodity prices. I entirely accept, and no one on this side of the House has ever challenged, that that is not a matter in the control of any British Government. But that was not the entire reason for the balance of payments deterioration. In addition, there was the dogmatic, obstinate refusal of the Chancellor to jeopardise his personal popularity in the Tory Party by increasing taxation when the downward float of the pound made it necessary to divert resources into exports.
The Chancellor won great applause from the Conservative benches by his tax cuts in 1971 and 1972. As a result of those tax cuts, he produced a consumption-led boom of unpredecented proportions. Then he was forced to allow the pound to float downward. It floated downward so far that we also had a devaluation of unprecedented proportions. In other words, on top of the consumption-led boom which the Chancellor had created through his tax cuts we had an export-led boom struggling to be born as a result of the devaluation of the pound. The two together were more than we could cope with.
Therefore, the balance of payments was bound to deteriorate, and sooner or later some measures would have been necessary to disinflate the home economy. We all know that that is true, and it is about time the Chancellor faced up to it and admitted it.
But my accusation against the Chancellor goes deeper than that. Having now, at last, admitted—if not explicitly, at least implicitly—that there is a balance of payments crisis and a need to disinflate home demand, what does he do? He still obstinately refuses to

jeopardise his personal popularity in the Tory Party, and instead deals with the domestic situation in the most wasteful, regressive, inefficient and divisive manner that he could have chosen by putting the brunt of the cuts on the public services of our people.
I am not saying that every item in the public expenditure programmes is sacrosanct. I do not say that there should be no cuts whatever in public expenditure. On the contrary, it could be argued that, in present circumstances, the right hon. Gentleman should have cut more than he has cut from the road programme. It is ludicrous to be spending as much as we are at present on road building when no one can tell what the relative economics of road and rail transport will be in five years' time.
But the right hon. Gentleman did not make any attempt at selectivity in his cuts. He has applied a crude cut across the board on every programme in the public sector. He pretended that it was necessary to impose cuts on the public sector because the private individual would already be hit hard as a result of the economic situation in general—as though, in some extraordinary way, cuts in the public sector do not affect private individuals whereas tax increases do. This is nonsense. Cuts in public expenditure affect private individuals as much at tax increases do. The only difference is that cuts in public expenditure will affect my constituents, whereas increases in tax will affect the constituents of the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Tugendhat) more than mine.

Mr. Christopher Tugendhat: It is kind of the hon. Gentleman to give way, even with that crack. It is fair to point out, in view of what he said about public expenditure, that the Chancellor said that there would be a variety of exceptions—for example, in investment in the energy industries and public sector house building. It is hardly fair of the hon. Gentleman to say that the cuts are being placed equally across the board.

Mr. Marquand: The Chancellor made some absolute exceptions, but apart from that he was totally unselective and had no priorities whatever. The fact of the matter is that public expenditure programmes have increased under every


Government, even this one, because, in the society in which we live, demographic changes alone make it necessary for public expenditure to increase even if the existing inadequate standards are to be maintained. If constituencies such as mine and many others represented by my right hon. and hon. Friends are to be brought up to the standard considered minimally satisfactory by the country at large, public expenditure programmes have to increase even more rapidly than they would otherwise have to do.
In a village in my constituency, every time there is heavy flooding the sewage pours out into the living rooms of the people, so overloaded is the sewerage system. It is not the fault of the present local authority. It is a result of long decades of inadequate social investment in that area. What the Chancellor said in effect on Monday is that it is more important to give incentives to higher-paid taxpayers than to provide an adequate sewerage system for Annesley village in my constituency.

Mr. Hugh Dykes: Mr. Hugh Dykes (Harrow, East) rose——

Mr. Marquand: I would rather not give way again. Time is pressing, and many hon. Members wish to speak.
There is a more fundamental reason why I regard the measures announced by the Chancellor, the Chancellor's statement and the Prime Minister's speech yesterday as falling far short of what the circumstances require. I believe that the crises we are facing—the fuel shortage, the industrial relations crisis, the energy crisis in the Middle East—are all symptoms of a much more fundamental crisis which is going to affect our society with increasing urgency in the years ahead.
Since the early 1950s, this society, in common with every other society in the industrial world, has been functioning on the assumption that each one of us can enjoy every year, both individually and collectively, a steadily increasing standard of living, and that economic growth will continue indefinitely and inevitably into the distant future with no limit. The argument between us both across the Floor of the House and within the two parties has been about how fast economic

growth should be and what the techniques should be, not about its desirability or possibility.
The energy crisis has shown that it is now time for all of us to recognise that this bonanza has ended. The party is over. Santa Claus does not exist. We are moving into a cold climate in the world as a whole. Automatic economic growth into the indefinite future is no longer possible as a goal of social policy. We are going to have to face, in a much harsher way than any of us wanted to do, the problem of how we redistribute income against a static or very nearly static economic situation. It is going to be enormously more difficult than to redistribute income against a background of expansion. Nevertheless, it is what we are going to have to do, whether we like it or not, because we live in a finite world of finite resources.
All this will present a challenge to our democratic institutions of a gravity which they have never faced before in our history. Somehow or other, we are going to have to devise institutions by which society can decide as a whole which groups should have priority and which groups should take a lower place in the queue. It is going to have to be done against a static background, and it will be enormously difficult. It can be done only by consensus, compromise, conciliation, discussion and democracy. If it is not done in that way, the alternative is some form or other of authoritarianism, whether of the Left or of the Right.
I believe that the challenge to us democratic Socialists and also to the Conservatives is to devise new institutions by which it can be done democratically and by consensus. My real charge, not so much against the Secretary of State for Employment as against the Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer, is that by their dogmatic approach, by their whipping up of an atmosphere of class war and of group against group and nation against group in our society, they have made that task immeasurably more difficult than it would otherwise have been.

5.0 p.m.

Sir John Hall: Apart from the closing words, I find myself in some sympathy with the latter part of the


speech made by the hon. Member for Ashfield (Mr. Marquand). He is absolutely right to draw to our attention the problems that will face us in the not-too-distant future, although I am a little more optimistic than he is as to our ability to overcome them. The hon. Member for Ashfield began his speech with a quotation from Lloyd George. Perhaps the House will forgive me if I refer to another saying which emanated from Lloyd George. He once said that war was too serious to be left to generals. It could be said, with equal truth, that the economy is too serious to be left to party politicians.
When under stress we all tend to take refuge in political catch phrases, slogans and name calling. We tend too often to be concerned with party warfare and to ignore the danger that threatens us all and will engulf the nation unless we are prepared to turn together and face it. Encouraged by the example of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment, I intend to exercise the old Adam and make as constructive and non-party a political speech as my limited abilities allow. I hope that the House will bear with me and not intervene too much.
First, the energy crisis. It is not a matter for disagreement that the oil-producing countries are entitled to husband their resources and to charge the rest of the world whatever the market will bear. We might think that they could have done it with greater consideration for the effects of their actions on the oil-consuming countries, but all advanced industrial countries should have been aware of the possible danger. Indeed, the countries were aware of the danger in an academic way but they have been deluded by the wishful thought that other sources of fuel and energy supply would become available before the blow fell. The oil-consuming countries miscalculated in that.
Nevertheless, although we are likely to suffer some hardship and difficulty in the short term—by which I mean over several years—I am inclined, in my perhaps perverse and rather masochistic way, to welcome the reduction in oil supplies. It will, I hope, hasten the development of a wide-ranging energy policy concerned not only with the exploitation of our indigenous fuels and the

more dynamic development of nuclear power but with other sources of energy provided by the sun, the sea, various forms of water power, the use of waste materials and in many other ways.
The reduction in oil supplies will, I hope, encourage the development of public transport to a point when the commuter will be happy to leave his car at home, a concept that is dear to the heart of my fellow members of the committee, of which I was chairman, which produced the report on urban transport. It may also encourage the development of fuels which do not pollute the air, so that we are not forced in future to do what people walking on the streets in Tokyo have to do on certain days, that is, to wear a face mask.
All this will happen only if the oil shortage is with us for some time. Because of the effect on our balance of payments, the increase in price is much more serious for us than is the cut in supplies. This will ensure that we economise considerably in the use of oil for some time to come, until we and the rest of the world have managed to adjust ourselves to the increased prices which by then will have worked through into the cost of goods and services. In the meantime, we are presented with a splendid opportunity, if we will take it, of pursuing a dynamic energy policy which deserves the full-time attention of a Minister.
I am, therefore, not too depressed about the oil situation, but I am alarmed about the effect of the combination of oil shortage and industrial action, not so much because of the damage it can and undoubtedly will do to our economy, serious as that is, as because it is a further and particularly sharp example of the sickness that afflicts our society.
There is an old saying that those whom the gods would destroy they first make mad. Any celestial visitor to these islands at present would conclude from our genius for self-inflicted wounds that the attempt to destroy our sanity had been only too successful. The immediate consequence of our form of insanity is the introduction of fuel rationing, with all it implies, including the disruptive effect of three-day working—let no one make a mistake about the damaging effect that will have—and the measures announced by the Chancellor of the Exchequer on Monday.
Remembering that earlier barbers were also surgeons, it is perhaps appropriate that the Chancellor should engage in this blood-letting operation to bring down the temperature of a patient suffering from over-heating. It is becoming the "in" thing to talk about the over-heated economy, and I do not dissent from the diagnosis. Nevertheless, I have a shrewd suspicion that two of the reasons for overheating are, first, that there is a degree of over-employment from top to bottom throughout industry—by which I mean that we could all work more effectively, without having to work harder, and be a great deal more productive—and secondly, that we are suffering from a comparative immobility of labour, which means that we have large pockets of unemployment in some areas and a number of unfilled vacancies in, for example, the South-East.
It would be wrong to say that I welcome the Chancellor's statement. Indeed, as a surtax payer facing the payment of two amounts of surtax next year plus the 10 per cent. levy, "welcome" is perhaps not the most appropriate word to choose. The levy can make little practical contribution towards the cure of our economic ills, but if it can make even a marginal pysychological contribution it must be accepted.
The Chancellor has been criticised in the House and the Press for not doing enough, but I do not agree with that. The real danger at the moment is that we, together with other countries that are similarly affected, are likely to take too drastic action and thus produce a world depression, the result of which could be very serious in the long term. For that reason, we should not be tempted to introduce excessive deflationary measures, and I believe that the Chancellor is right in leaving his options open, provided that he is quick to act, as he says he will, should it become necessary either further to depress or to stimulate the economy.
I turn now to the long term and the more serious problems which will confront us even when we have solved our present fuel problem. My distinguished late constituent Benjamin Disraeli once referred to two nations, and his warning is as apposite now as it was then. If we

are to solve the many serious problems that will confront the world during the next half century, including shortages of basic raw materials, to which the right hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) referred, it is essential that all sections of society, particularly management and men in industry, should reexamine their attitudes towards each other.
The industrial scene is complicated by the fact that the issues involved are political as well as industrial. There are elements that wish to overthrow the existing society which, despite all its faults, has the support of the overwhelming majority. This tends to make the rational settlement of differences rather more difficult than it would otherwise be. However, this small minority would have little influence if there were not genuine grievances and genuine misunderstandings within industry of which the minority never fail to take full advantage. There is very much to admire in British industry. There is also much that needs to be put right, particularly in the pay structure, with which I include pensions and other benefits.
Phases 1, 2 and 3 were introduced because it was believed that we could not accept inflation generated in part by large annual wage increases running well ahead of any increase in productivity. Certainly the effect of unrestricted wage and salary increases added to all the other inflationary factors would make life intolerable for those who could not increase their incomes. I need not mention the various sections of the community who are affected in that way.
Personally I was and remain opposed to statutory prices and incomes policies, and I have said so in the House. I have supported reluctantly the various phases as a temporary expedient until more lasting solutions could be found. I was and remain unhappy about stage 3 because, if we are to exercise control of prices and incomes against the present background situation, stage 3 is too flexible rather than too rigid.
Without going into the problems facing a democratic government endeavouring to impose a policy which by its very nature is bound to be unacceptable to some of those whose co-operation is essential, I believe it is clear that we shall


not find long-term solutions to our economic and social problems without all of us drastically rethinking our attitude both to these problems and to each other.
Economic debates too often are concerned only with statistics and economic theories. They should be about people—about the kind of life we want for ourselves and are able to offer to those who follow us and about how to make the best use of our diverse talents and our industrial resources to achieve the aims we set ourselves. It would be easy for me to concentrate on fiscal or monetary solutions, but these and other techniques of economic management are useless unless we get the human relations right. I make no excuse for concentrating on the human rather than the technical side of our economic problem.
One of these problems is the chaotic wage structure that exists both within certain industries and between industries. There are large differences in reward which bear no relation to the work or contribution of the individual but which result from historical accident or particularly powerful union pressure. There are wage differences which reflect status and which the workers concerned endeavour to maintain regardless of economic need. There are differences so difficult to understand that they are themselves a ready source of industrial trouble. There is sometimes failure to recognise that the economic or social value of a particular industry has changed and that reward in that industry should be moved up or down. In private enterprise, market forces tend to produce the necessary change, although not always, but in nationalised industries—subject to interference by all Governments—adjustment is often more difficult, as we have found in recent months.
There should be a national review of wages carried out by the trade unions, the CBI and management organisations, with the Government represented, in an endeavour to bring about greater order in our national wage structure. With the developing techniques of job evaluation and other management tools, including the computer, this should be a possible if formidable task. If as a result it were possible to agree a wage system throughout the country that was accepted as fair as between one person and another, it

would do much to remove the cause of industrial unrest.
It will be argued that any form of national incomes policy is impossible, that every trade union and industry would endeavour to make the adjustments considered most favourable to itself, without regard for the national picture. This is a real objection, and this is why earlier I said that we shall need to change our attitudes to each other if we are to find a lasting solution.
The alternatives are not encouraging. They are to yield to unrestricted and unrestrained demands for high—and, in the economic sense, unjustified—demands, leap-frogging each other, which in the end are self-defeating and destructive, or to move towards a more authoritarian control over the economy. Experience in other countries does not suggest that this type of authoritarian control is desirable or that it produces the desired result.
Surely there are enough resources of common sense and good will in the community as a whole to enable us to examine the wage and price structures of key industries, taking into account the interests of those industries and of the nation as a whole. We should seek to bring into the open all the old forms of defensive restrictive practices, all the myths, traditions and habits of thought which have accumulated over the years, to see whether we can arrive at a modus vivendi between us which will make industrial relations so much easier. I hope that the National Union of Mine-workers will take part in such an exercise and, in the meantime, will suspend its present action.
I conclude on a note that is perhaps appropriate to the season of the year. In the Middle East nearly 2,000 years ago was born a man whose birthday we celebrate this month and whose teaching and example have had a profound effect on our thinking and our way of life. Today, when our objects of worship are the growth of the national product, higher productivity and what is described as the good life, whatever those words mean, the word that comes out of the Middle East is not the word of comfort or of peace but a word which could equally influence our thinking and our way of life. The action of the oil-producing countries, coincidental with the action of the trade union leaders, is forcing us to stand back


and to ask ourselves where we are going and why. If we respond to the challenge, as I am sure we can, then whatever the short-term discomforts and difficulties we can look forward to the growth of a happier, more responsible and more stable society. This is surely what we all desire.

5.17 p.m.

Mr. Roy Mason: I rise in this unaccustomed position on the back benches to address the House as a miners' MP. I listened with interest to the speech of the hon. Member for Wycombe (Sir John Hall). His speech was like the curate's egg—some parts good and some parts bad.
I applaud what he said about relativity in wages, and indeed the Pay Board is undertaking a study of that nature. Let us hope that something good comes out of it. It will take a long time, but we shall have to face the fact that we must pay the right wage to the person who gives of his best and who serves the nation to the full.
Secondly, I support the hon. Gentleman in his remarks about an energy supremo. There must come a time when the Government—and this will apply when a Labour Government takes office—will appoint a person of Cabinet status to examine questions of North Sea gas and oil, the coal industry, the resources of the Irish Sea, the Celtic Sea, and so on. Such a person will be able to deal with fuel resources as a whole.
I am sorry that the Secretary of State for Employment is leaving the Chamber because I wanted to make some comments about his speech. I am a little depressed today because I have a cold, but I am even more depressed having heard the right hon. Gentleman's speech. The right hon. Gentleman spoke as though he was fastened rigidly in the straitjacket of phase 3 as enunciated by the Prime Minister. Secondly, he made the same mistake as the ministerial spiv who heads the Department of Trade and Industry and who last Monday had to withdraw a remark when telling the miners to get back to work. Last night he used the word "strike" again and he withdrew it. Then the Secretary of State for Employment used the same word today. This is the sort of mentality that per

meates the Cabinet and indeed the thinking of many Tories. Until we get rid of that attitude, we shall not reach the conciliatory tone which we require to solve the problems of the miners.

Mr. W. R. Rees-Davies: Can the right hon. Gentleman explain why a farm worker would not be prepared to leave his animals to starve over a weekend to maintain the farm, whereas a miner can take the view that he will not maintain his pit equipment over the weekend? Is not that attitude very much worse than a strike, since the inability to maintain equipment in working order may affect the miners' livelihood? Is it not worse than a strike to take pay in those circumstances? Surely this question must be answered by somebody of the right hon. Gentleman's experience.

Mr. Mason: It is a ridiculous analogy to compare life and death with a piece of working equipment. Furthermore, during the course of the five-day week that they work, the miners maintain the machinery. It is not their fault if the maintenance still requires to be done at weekends. They are still working a full five-day week, and they are managing to keep up output and to maintain machinery as well.
I want first to address the House on the oil scene. I do not think that there will be a quick political settlement between the Israelis and the Arab bloc in order that we might get the oil flow back to what it was prior to the Middle East war. I do not see any political agreement. But anyone who knows these war-torn areas and how strongly the Israelis feel about them also knows that if they resist giving them back the Arabs will continue the shortfall and the escalation in price, with all that that will mean in adverse effects on our balance of payments.
The even-handed policy of the Government has had no effect, and it will have no effect in the years to come. It is possible that gradually we might be able to get out of our present energy-starved situation. The United States can quickly come to live with it. They have vast domestic coal and oil reserves. They have oil-bearing shale. They can cut back on domestic consumption and live within


their means. The Japanese are in a very different situation. They are dependent almost completely for their economic growth on the import of vast quantities of oil and therefore they will be frantically fighting to get the largest possible share of Middle East oil irrespective of the type of pact that they make with the Arabs to do so.
In spite of the even-handed policy of the Foreign Office, the United Kingdom Government, too, are sending their cohorts to the shahs and sheikhs of the Middle East in order to grab what they can. The European Economic Community States, because their own selfishness outweighs the Community spirit, are so far unable to come to any agreement on an energy policy.
All these energy-greedy nations will now be scrapping for their share of the oil which is to flow while, over the next decade, they hurriedly search for and invest in alternatives.
The threat of increased oil prices began long before the Middle East war. The Arab producing countries which dominated the world's oil supplies foresaw the threat of technological change which would challenge their dominance. That technological change was the ability to design, build and launch these treat oil drilling rigs which were capable of combating the turbulent seas for the exploration and exploitation of oil. As soon as that happened, vast areas of the world opened up for the first time and the dominance of the Arab producers was bound to decrease, probably in a decade. So they began nationalising. They started banding together to bring the oil companies to heel, and they started increasing prices.
These factors mean that the United Kingdom will never again return to its previous position of having a glut of imported cheap oil. Those days are gone. We are at the end of an era, and (his nation, like others, has to live with that fact.
We have about a decade in which we can grow out of this energy-starved situation. During that time much will depend on the coal industry and the miners.
I ask what we can do about it. We have heard no programme from the Government. We have had numerous de

bates on fuel and power and energy, but the Government have not yet a programme.
I suggest, first, that we ought to look seriously at the production of oil from coal. This country has done some research into this, as have the United States and Germany. We know that we can get 3½ barrels of oil from every tons of coal. We know that we can get 3·5 million barrels of oil per year from one major mine. In the past, because of the price of oil, we thought that it was economically unreasonable to go ahead with an oil-from-coal processing plant. With the escalating cost of oil. it is now economically feasible.
Therefore I suggest that the Government should look at the research and development stages which have been reached in Germany, the United States and here at home, and that they should find out whether they are at a higher technological level than we are. If necessary, they should buy in and be ready to go ahead with a prototype oil-from-coal processing plant. If such plants could be built alongside our major mines we would have an added dimension to our fuel and power resources, and there is no reason why that should not be done now.

Sir John Hall: Will the right hon. Gentleman add South Africa to that list, which is the most advanced country in the world in this respect?

Mr. Mason: We have carried out a great deal of research, but I do not know the extent to which the Government are giving it the impetus and urgency that is required.
Secondly, I remind the House that we have done the major research into the fluidised-bed technique of power generation. We had experiments at Leather-head run by the National Coal Board. However, because of the lack of funds, we embarked upon a joint venture with the United States. I suggest that we ought also to urge on research and development into the fluidised-bed technique.
Many hon. Members may not be aware of what I am talking about. It is a method of using powdered coal in a floating bed within a power station. The


cost of generation is much cheaper than in a conventional power station. There is higher efficiency from the plant. Environmentally it is the cleanest of all stations. That is why the United States came in on the joint venture. Above all, it uses powdered coal, and that is precisely what we produce from our highly mechanised mines.
Thirdly, I suggest that we ought to stop procrastinating about our future nuclear programme. We led the world with our Magnox reactors. We have supplied more energy to the national grid from our nuclear power stations than the rest of the world put together, including the United States. Then we embarked upon our advanced gas-cooled reactors, the next generation, and this is where there is concern. But it is for the Government now to apply more expertise, designers and engineers to overcome the troubles which are causing them to be built late. There is bound to be another energy gap in 1979–1980 if they are not built on time.
In my view we should not buy the American light-water reactors. The hon. Member for Abingdon (Mr. Neave) spelt this out yesterday. It would be a shattering blow to our nuclear power industry. We should find ourselves fastened to American technology for a generation ahead, and at any time they could hold the nation to ransom over the supply of necessary equipment, spare parts and know how in respect of light-water reactors. In my view we must press ahead with the advanced gas-cooled reactors and get them built quicker than the present time scale.
Fourthly, we must quickly develop the Irish and Celtic Sea resources. It has staggered the nation that we have been able to find untold wealth already in the North Sea in terms of gas and oil, and undoubtedly there is a lot more to come. I know from my own ministerial experience that we were rather more excited about what the Irish and Celtic Seas could give up. There is much wealth there and there is no reason why we should not begin exploration and exploitation in those seas.
Given developments such as these, within 10 years all the methods of fuel and power resources could be feeding the nation and there could be more than enough for our own requirements.
What of the interim period, given the shortfall of oil and its increased price? We all know that only coal can fill the gap. But the problem in the coal industry is the drain of manpower and the lack of recruitment. According to the National Coal Board, it is estimated that by 1985 the industry will need 178,000 men to mine the coal in the tonnages that we shall require by that time. The National Coal Board has just released figures showing that only 122,000 will be available by that time, and we are already facing a shortfall of 56,000 men.
Prior to the overtime ban, men were drifting away from the mines at the rate of 550 per week. The rate is now 800 per week. Taking into consideration recruitment, as some men are coming back to the pits, we are still losing men at an annual rate of 15,000 in addition to the shortfall of 56,000 which I mentioned earlier. That is the seriousness of the manpower situation.
I wonder whether the House appreciates that so far this year coal production is down by 2 million tons compared with a similar period last year. Why? Because the coal industry is beginning to eat its own seed corn. We are so short of men that development work necessary to drive roads and prepare new coal faces is being left in order that men can be put on production to get the tonnages that we require. But in recent weeks mechanised coalface mining, which operates on a 24-hour three-shift system, has had to stop operating one shift, stop coal turning, and put men back on to development because it is lagging behind. So coalfield activity is slowing down.
Because of the overtime ban the NCB is now losing 750,000 tons of coal production per week. It is incurring heavy losses. It will break through its statutory deficit quite soon and will have to ask for further borrowing powers because it is losing at least £5 million per week.
Stocks of coal in this country will soon be critically low. The national executive of the NUM met on 13th December and it is due to meet again on 10th January—a four weeks' gap. In that time we shall have only 12 days' production of coal, and they will not be full days because some will be Mondays when coal cannot be turned as the faces will not be ready.
If the overtime ban continues, without the Government acting, by mid-February we shall have the gravest industrial crisis of all time. Power station coal is running out. There will be only a trickle from the mines. Most industry will have stopped as there will be no power available. Millions will be laid off. Industry in general will be paralysed. The national grid will be operating at between 20 per cent. and 30 per cent. of its full capacity. The nation would be blacked out There would be millions of depressed people. The economy would be in ruins and industry would be flat on its back. It would take years to recover. It is frightening to think of the hundreds of small firms which may face bankruptcy.
Should this happen? What are the obstacles? The first is the dogmatism and stubbornness of the Prime Minister who is boxing himself in every time he opens his mouth. The second is the refusal by the Prime Minister, the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Secretary of State for Employment to talk to the miners and to be prepared to pay the rate for the job. It will be a small price to pay when we think of the millions of pounds that will soon be lost and the general depression that will occur.
Stage 3 is already shattered. The circumstances in which it was conceived have vastly changed. The economic strategy of the Government is already in ruins. So I ask, why force upon our people unprecedented industrial strife if it can be averted? Why stick doggedly and rigidly to an out-dated philosophy, laudable as it was to try, when external forces alone have shattered the Prime Minister's dreams? We know that he is fighting for his political life and that back-bench Tory MPs have said, "Give in to the miners and you are politically dead." We are witnessing the Prime Minister struggling to save his political neck whilst all around him the nation despairs and we rapidly sink into a quagmire of industrial and economic depression from which it will take years to recover.
At this stage we need a conciliator, not a bully.

Mr. Patrick Cormack: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Mason: The Prime Minister must allow latitude to the Secretary of State for Employment. He must not keep boxing himself in and commit his chosen conciliator for the job.

Mr. Cormack: Is the right hon. Gentleman conciliating?

Mr. Mason: Can it be done? I believe that it can be done. There are numerous ways in which it can be done. First—every day that goes by will make the situation more difficult—I suggest that the conciliator should meet the union and the National Coal Board and consider what latitude there is for rejigging the award so that those who are paid increases of between £8 and £9 on the unsocial hours aspect for night-shift working may forgo 22p per night shift or £1·10 per week of their total increase to the lower paid. That is one possibility. But as each day passes and as every miner realises what his take will be, and as attitudes harden, a settlement will be more difficult. The Government have stood back for so long that it will be difficult for the NUM to accept such a settlement.
Secondly, the Prime Minister in his haste—because he wants a confrontation—refused the clocking-on suggestion. With more mines closing miners have to travel many miles from their mining villages to the nearest available mines. The mines are not located within or near their villages now. Miners are having to get up at 4.15 in the morning, start an hour's journey at about 4.30, and get to the pithead at about 5.30. They have then to be prepared for work. They have to put on their safety clothing, boots, tin hats, cap lamps and other safety equipment and be prepared to descend the mine, for which they do not receive a penny. Factory workers get paid from the moment they clock on and start to put on their safety clothing. The Government should think seriously about that possibility.
Thirdly, why not use the European Coal and Steel Community funds? Our coal and steel industries are members of the ECSC. Before the end of this month the Treasury will have to make its first contribution of £7·9 million to the budget of the ECSC and that has to be made up to £25 million within three years. The German and French coal industries have


received millions of dollars from that budget over the past year for resettlement and retraining of coalminers. We do not have that problem. Our problem is recruitment and the stabilisation of personnel.
Why cannot the Department of Trade and Industry, which is preparing its bid now, which must be in before 31st December, claw back part of the funds which have jointly gone into the ECSC budget? I understand that it is proposing to claw back money for research purposes and for the education of the sons and daughters of miners who have been killed in the pits. Why not consider clawing back some of that money for recruitment and the stabilisation of personnel, thereby using that money for the coal industry? The attraction of the idea is that only one other industry can follow suit—the steel industry—but it has no claim pending and no other union can make a similar claim. It would not open the floodgates.
Fourthly, there is the 3½ per cent. productivity deal in the offing, but not in the take. The miners have been offered a total of 13 per cent. on their basic pay, with fringe benefits. The 3½ per cent. is for productivity. The NUM and the NCB have been trying to negotiate a productivity deal for 20 months. Wilberforce recommended it. They have 20 months in the bag already. Therefore, why should not the conciliator "ask the board and the union to agree on productivity and bring some of that 3½ per cent. forward from the offing into the take? That would increase the basic wage.
Finally, irrespective of those four ideas, the Government will have to set up a coal commission for the good of the nation and the industry, because we cannot allow this drainage of manpower and lack of recruitment to continue. We must have the coal and the manpower. A coal commission will have to be established with terms of reference that allow recommendations to be made on how best to halt the drain and to recruit. It will obviously involve recommendations on pay and other incentives in order that we can get the men for the coal that we require.
Therefore, we are thinking about a package, about items 1, 2 and 3. There is no reason why the new Secretary of State should not be able to find an answer.

If he negotiates, if he is a real conciliator and is given latitude by the Prime Minister, there is no reason why he should not be able to find a solution.
Finally, I introduce a personal note. I went underground at 14 years of age. I worked for 14 years in the pits. I was carried out three times. I have seen men killed by my side. My father, a miner, was crippled for life. My mother died at the age of 46 after nursing him back to health. There was no National Health Service then. So I have awful memories of the coal mining industry.
I estimate that I spent four years of my life underground; four years of loss of fresh air and the sky and the beauties of the earth. Men who are retiring today at the age of 65, who went underground at 14, have lost 12 years of their lives in the bowels of the earth. That is why at the age of 65 they look so much older. That is why they rarely live long to enjoy their retirement.
Last year 64 men died in the pits, 454 were seriously maimed, and 58,000 received injuries necessitating more than three days off work. Another 626 men contracted that dreaded dust disease, pneumoconiosis. That is one year's toll of death and injuries in the coal mines. This year we have had three disasters, Lofthouse, Seafield and Markham Main. Thirty men were killed in three mining accidents.
The miners are paying their price for coal with their lives. What do we as a nation propose to pay them in the up-to-date revised offer? For a man who is married, with two children, going down a mine on five days a week, for 7· hours a day, the offer is £29·80. It is not the starting rate for a learner guard on the London tube trains. For the man who braves the coal face, who is skilled, operating power-loading machines, which is a highly dangerous occupation, in dust-ridden seams, we are offering less than £40 a week—£39·60. We are giving him a straight 7 per cent. increase. That is why the men are leaving the pits. That is why we cannot recruit them.
When I was Minister of Power I had the unpleasant job of shunting out of the Coal Division a civil servant who dealt with miners as if they were units. He acted like a computer-minded statistician. I wanted at the head of the Coal


Division a man with feeling and understanding. We were then making redundant between 20,000 and 30,000 miners a year. They were being treated like dots on a chart. I therefore convened the Sunningdale conference in October 1968, and we stopped the rapid rundown of the miners from that date.
The inhumanity of it all depressed me. The inhumanity of man rang in my ears all that time. Working underground in a coal mine is not a life for any man. It is not fair on his wife. It is not fair on his family. It is a pity that we cannot close all the mines tomorrow—but we cannot. The nation depends upon them. That is why we must pay the miners, and pay them well, until that day of the final closure gloriously arrives.

5.45 p.m.

Mr. Daniel Awdry: The right hon. Member for Barnsley (Mr. Mason) has made a most powerful, sincere and impressive speech. Everyone in the House who listened to it realises that no one in the Chamber knows more than the right hon. Gentleman about the coal industry.
This is a general debate on economic affairs. The right hon. Member for Barnsley spoke throughout his speech about the miners and, my goodness, he knows a great deal about miners and the mining industry. The whole House was very moved when he referred to his personal experience, the 14 years which he spent in the mines, and the suffering he witnessed. I ask him to accept that those of us who are backing our party at present would say that we also realise that miners do a dangerous job of work and that it is a job which we would not particularly want to do.
One of the most impressive parts of the right hon. Gentleman's speech was when he emphasised the immense power which is today in the hands of the miners, and the tragedy of the overtime ban. He explained how, if that ban continues long enough, the entire economy of this country could be ruined. I ask the right hon. Gentleman, therefore, with utter sincerity, to be willing, if a way can be found to solve this dispute within the general context of our incomes policy—the right hon. Gentleman suggested a re-jigging—to use his immense influence to try to bring the miners to understand the

national interest and to withdraw from their overtime ban.
I go along with the right hon. Gentleman to this extent. He said that he would like to see a coal commission to look into the future of the industry to see what further action must be taken in the light of changing energy needs of this country. I agree with that. We on the Government side of the House respect the right hon. Gentleman deeply. We ask him to use all his authority to try to find a solution for the sake of the country.
Like many hon. Members I have sat through the whole of the debate. I have been waiting to be called to speak since yesterday. It was rather a shame that the beginning of the debate yesterday was so full of heat, fury and emotion. The mood has clearly changed today. But I think that all in the House would agree that anger will get us nowhere and that the situation is far too serious for that.
The background of the debate is the gravest economic situation which has faced the country in my lifetime, and I was born in 1924. The debate seems to fall into two parts, and two questions have been raised. The first question is whether the Chancellor's measures are appropriate to the needs of the country and whether they are fair. The second question is whether the miners should have an increased offer.
I welcome the Chancellor's measures, believing them to be fair and appropriate. Some hon. Members have said that a tax should have been put on petrol. It was even suggested that we should, perhaps, have had petrol rationing. It was somehow suggested that the Government's policies were restrictive on public transport. I do not believe that the country would have understood an increase of indirect taxes, particularly on petrol; nor an increase in the basic rate of income tax. This surely would have encouraged more wage demands, because it would have placed additional burdens on trade unionists. I believe that it was right to increase the burden of tax on surtax payers, and I am sure that they accept this. But let us not forget that many of them have seen their savings fall in value severely in the last few weeks, and that is a fact which they also accept.

Mr. E. Fernyhough: Every day I meet men, in the ordinary working men's clubs, who have the same experiences.


They think that they are backing winners, but they back losers. They never moan.

Mr. Awdry: I do not think that surtax payers are moaning, but it is a fact that we should take into account. Some people, after their working life, have put their savings into investments and have seen a very severe fall in the value of those savings in recent months. In the total burden that people are bearing at present, that is a fact. We should recognise that they do not moan about it; they accept it.
The increases in tax in relation to the sale of land are overdue. They are not chicken feed. A rate of tax on an individual of 75 per cent. on the sale of land is not a derisory tax. It means that three-quarters of the proceeds of a sale will go to the Government. I believe that that is socially just. I have argued before on those lines, but I do not think that it is fair to describe that measure as chicken feed. It was agreed by most people that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had to do something. We may debate whether he has increased taxes in the right places, but all of us agree that certain measures were necessary.
The emphasis however throughout the debate has been on the industrial situation, and it is to that situation that I shall address myself. I describe myself as a moderate person. I am a fairly nonpartisan politician. I am one of those hon. Members who tend to see both sides of the case. Perhaps that is why I am still on the back benches. I do not speak very often. This is the first time that I have spoken during this Session. I am almost a member of the silent majority. I do not believe in confrontation. I believe in give and take in all our affairs.
All our institutions—for example, Parliament, the legal system and council chambers throughout the country—depend on tolerance, good will, a sense of fair play, a sense of humour and, in the end, an acceptance by the minority of whatever decision the majority takes. If those qualities cease to exist in our institutions, the institutions will fail. No one knows what would take their place.
The hon. Member for Ashfield (Mr. Marquand) made a brilliant speech. He said that the assumption, which all of us

may have made, that we shall always be better off year after year, is dead. That is right. We shall need new ideas and new institutions to handle the future.
The actions which some minorities are taking in Britain go beyond the line of fair play. Someone may explain to me where I am wrong, but I cannot understand, for example, how it is fair play for a train driver, who has driven his diesel engine quite happily for several months without a speedometer, suddenly to say that he will not drive it this week because it is not fitted with that speedometer, thus bringing misery to thousands of people, young and old alike. That driver must know when he refuses to take out his train that he will certainly cause misery to members of the public who have no part in any dispute in which he is involved. I cannot believe that action of that kind is fair play.
I say with sincerity to the right hon. Member for Barnsley that in this perilous time I cannot understand the actions of some of the miners' leaders, bitter and frustrated as they may justly be. I cannot understand that it is fair play to try to refuse to have a ballot on the overtime ban. It may be the view of some of the miners' leaders that their action will smash the Government. I know that some of the miners' leaders have said that it is their intention not just to have negotiations with the National Coal Board but to destroy the Government.

Mr. Harry Ewing: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that there are leaders in the National Union of Mineworkers' who have accepted—and said so publicly—that it is the job of the Labour Party to bring down the Government and not the job of the trade union movement? Will he agree that that is the predominant view in the trade union movement?

Mr. Awdry: I wish I could agree. I respect what the hon. Gentleman says. I am not on the executive of the National Union of Mineworkers, but I understand that there are moderates on the executive. They have put their views forward. I understand that Mr. Gormley may be one of the moderates. However, it seems that the majority on the executive is not moderate. There are people on the executive who feel that industrial action


could smash the elected Government. Some hon. Members in the debate describe such action as the flexing of industrial muscles. Yesterday that expression was used on several occasions. I should describe such action as industrial blackmail.

Mr. James Sillars: The hon. Gentleman has been lecturing the miners. Why does he not turn his attention to his right hon. Friends who brought in the Industrial Relations Act? He will find that Sections 138 and 141 give his Government complete power to ballot the miners.

Mr. Awdry: I accept that the Industrial Relations Act needs to be amended. There is no doubt about that. I do not believe that it necessarily creates the best climate in which to handle the present situation. I believe that if a ballot were called for under the Act the miners would take that action in the wrong spirit and regard it as a provocative step. If the ballot decision is taken it must be taken by the miners themselves.
There are a number of trade unionists who believe that the right thing for the trade unions to do is to unite in total opposition to the Government's policies. That is a threat not only to this Government but to the whole system of parliamentary democracy. We are all apt to take our democracy for granted, but we are foolish to do so. Democracy depends on allowing an elected Government, however much it is hated, to govern. It means that all must respect the authority of the executive and Parliament. It is fair enough to have rows in this place but in the end, if the system is to work, the Government must have the right to govern.

Mr. J. D. Dormand: Will the hon. Gentleman tell the House how the miners are not respecting the Government?

Mr. Awdry: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman missed the point which I was making. I was saying that there are many trade unionists who feel that the correct line of approach is to have a united trade union movement in total opposition to the Government. I said earlier that there are some leaders of the National Union of Mineworkers who feel that by their action they can break

the Government. Hon. Members may disagree, but it is a serious threat to Parliament.
Yesterday the right hon. Member for Bristol, South-East (Mr. Benn) said:
I am amazed that when Conservative hon. Members come to Parliament to debate economic matters they always make speeches based upon their knowledge of the City or of industry, but never do they represent, in the House, what must be brought to their attention—as it is to our attention, week after week—namely, the problems of people who are confronted with these economic policies. Every speech by a Conservative Member is always a speech from a would-be Chancellor of the Exchequer."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 18th December 1973; Vol. 866, c. 1268.]
I can assure the right hon. Gentleman with sincerity that I am in no way a would-be Chancellor of the Exchequer. I claim that I understand the people whom I represent. I understand the views and the problems of ordinary people. I represent 65,000 constituents. They are bewildered and worried by the prospect of a three-day week. Many are desperately anxious about their jobs, their savings and their families. None of us knows what the three-day week will involve but we all know that it will mean colossal hardship to the nation.
I have found a most wonderful response in my constituency to the present emergency situation. People who are members of all parties ring to tell me, for example, that the lights are on in a certain street, that they are using up electricity and that they should be turned off. Last night a man rang and told me that he had a lorry doing nothing. He asked if he could send it up to London to bring back some of the mail which is delayed because of the rail dispute. He told me that he wanted no money for this.
This is something of which we should take account. There is a feeling in the country that, whatever the hardship and the sacrifice, people do not want an elected Government to be broken by militant forces acting outside Parliament. These people are not only Conservatives; they are people who passionately believe in the importance of this place and in the importance of democracy.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: Will they go to work in the pits?

Mr. Awdry: I am referring to the entire nation.

Hon. Members: Oh.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I am desperately anxious to call as many hon. Members as I can, and these interruptions simply prolong matters.

Mr. Awdry: I agree, Mr. Speaker. I will leave the hon. Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Arthur Lewis) alone. But there are deep lessons to be learned. I agree with Mr. Bishop's letter in The Times today. I think that the NEDC should appoint a panel to study the problems of manpower in industries which serve the national need on a priority basis. Perhaps there should be special contracts given to those who work in those industries, as we have in the Services and in the police. I also agree that in this country we need a general job evaluation exercise and that this should be undertaken as soon as possible, although clearly it is a very long-term undertaking.
In the meantime we have a short-term crisis. We are immediately threatened by a three-day week which will severely cripple Britain. I trust and pray that the miners, the train drivers, the TUC and the Labour Party, who have great influence in these matters, will deeply ponder in the next few days what is the wisest course for the miners and the train drivers in the national interest. But if, at the end of the Christmas holiday, the miners decide to continue their work to rule, I hope that the Prime Minister will not flinch from appealing to the British people, because I honestly believe that he will receive a greatly increased mandate to continue to govern our country.

6.2 p.m.

Mr. Norman Atkinson: I want to take up one or two of the points which the hon. Member for Chippenham (Mr. Awdry) has made and to discuss briefly what has been described as Powellism among the Conservative Party. I should also like to mention a couple of the issues that have been debated within the Labour movement.
First, the hon. Member for Chippenham repeated some of the points made by his colleagues yesterday, although, compared with what he said about syndicalism in the Labour movement, the speeches yesterday

sounded more like Christmas broadcasts. I should like to explain the situation to the hon. Member and to say why syndicalism has been rejected for some years.
Members of the Conservative Front Bench repeatedly talk about using the method of industrial dispute and general strike to further the political objectives of the Labour movement. It may surprise the hon. Member to know that that method is overwhelmingly rejected and is not now used. It is within the power of the trade unions and the Labour movement to stop the economy tomorrow if they so wish. It is possible to have a general strike. If people were so motivated politically, they could have a general strike and bring down the Government.
The reason why they do not do so, and why syndicalism has been rejected throughout the Labour movement, is that we all recognise that although we can stop the economy we cannot restart it. If we stop the economy, we forfeit our right to decide what comes afterwards, what sort of society we shall then have. If we suspend, no matter how temporarily, the whole democratic process in this country, we cannot then rebuild it because of the very conditions that we have created in stopping the economy.
Syndicalism is therefore rejected throughout the Labour movement, and I am amazed that hon. Members opposite frequently try to sustain the argument that there are active trade unionists —so-called mindless militants—whose sole purpose is to stop the economy of this country. That is not true, and Trotsky theorising, as it is now called, is rejected by the general stream of the Labour movement. I could say quite a lot about that subject, but I will say only that the more British capitalism becomes internationalised, the more the prospect of syndicalism having real effect diminishes. I hope that Conservative Members will begin to learn some of the lessons.
Front Bench spokesmen, including the Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer, talk about democracy being threatened because they believe that such talk will ultimately pay them political dividends. But it will not do so, because the people of this country understand what we and the leadership


of the Labour movement are trying to give to them and how we are trying to solve their problems.
Before turning to the economic Blimpism of the Conservative Party, I should like to say that I am giving notice to the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell)—I hope that the pigeons have been released and the message will reach him—that I want to take him apart if he returns to the Chamber.
May I first point out to the Secretary of State for Employment, however, that he and the Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer tried to delude the House by suggesting that the present offer to the miners is 16½ per cent. of the total wage bill when it is not. Rumours of that sort, put about by the Prime Minister in furtherance of his political and psychological warfare, should be stopped at the root. The Under-Secretary of State for Employment shakes his head. If he believes that the offer to the miners is not 16½ per cent. of the total wage bill in the industry, then let him say so. The Prime Minister said that the Government were flexible and generous and were offering the miners 16½ per cent. on top of their wages, but that is not true and the Under-Secretary knows that it is not true. If what I am saying is misleading the House, any member of the Government Front Bench can get up and say so. But I hope he will also tell the Prime Minister to stop propagating these ideas about the size of the offer.
I see that the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West has arrived, so before I get on to the question of the Labour Party's policy, which he and others have challenged both privately and publicly, and before I deal with the alternatives which we propose, let me put a question or two to the right hon. Gentleman. Towards the end of his speech yesterday, he recognised that what he was saying would mean some increase in the level of unemployment. The right hon. Gentleman shakes his head. If he is denying that, I have no case to make. If he was not saying that there should be an increase in the level of unemployment in this country, as a prerequisite of the solution which he offered to the House——

Mr. Powell: The hon. Member is totally mistaken. What I have said repeatedly is that any reduction of inflation, however brought about, must be attended as a consequence with some degree of unemployment.

Mr. Atkinson: I do not know how you, Mr. Speaker, would interpret what the right hon. Gentleman has said, but it seems to me that what he is saying is that if we use his methods——

Mr. Powell: No, I did not say that.

Mr. Atkinson: —to reduce the level of unemployment—I am sorry but I should have said "inflation"; I must get it absolutely right before I set about the right hon. Member—they must increase the level of unemployment.

Mr. Powell: The hon. Member has it exactly the wrong way round. The increase in unemployment is not a cause or a method of the reduction in the rate of inflation. It is an inevitable consequence of reducing inflation, however the reduction in inflation is brought about. It is, therefore, a substantial misrepresentation to say that to reduce inflation by a particular method causes unemployment. It is the reduction of inflation, and not the method, which causes the unemployment.

Mr. Atkinson: That is standing Greek logic on its head. It is absolutely unfair. The right hon. Gentleman and those who support him are being dishonest if they say that a rise in unemployment is a consequence of the methods they advocate and that it is not a significant aspect of their argument to reduce employment in this country as a means of lowering inflation.

Mr. Powell: Mr. Powell indicated dissent.

Mr. Atkinson: The right hon. Gentleman still shakes his head, but I am a student of his comments about the economy. Those who adopt the Blimp-like attitudes of the Tories and those who support the theory of reducing the money supply must understand the consequences. If money supply is reduced as the right hon. Gentleman suggests, the level of unemployment will be possibly 2,500,000. But he is dishonest about that because he refuses to specify the consequences.
That is one of the reasons why the Treasury and others have devised a sort of gobbledegook with which they can talk among themselves about how the money supply should be reduced and how unemployment can be increased as a means of regulating the economy. They can talk about Ml and M3 because no one then knows that they are talking about unemployment or about taking the bread out of the workers' mouths. It is much better for them to be able to talk about the diminution of Ml and M3, but they are discussing unemployment. The right hon. Gentleman says that he has been wrongly quoted, but that is precisely the purpose of his argument.

Mr. Powell: No.

Mr. Atkinson: He wants to use unemployment as a means of regulating the economy but he presents it in this form of gobbledegook. The workers should clearly understand what the right hon. Gentleman is saying when they suggest that Powellism might be the answer. Powellism is the most dangerous theory that this country could put forward, and the country must clearly understand what it means. It must understand why the Conservatives debate it in the way they do and why such a large percentage of them accept that theory, it is the core of the argument put forward by the Conservatives.

Mr. Ridley: The hon. Member has wasted the last five minutes of his speech upon what appears to be a mistaken interpretation of what my right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) said. Will he now apologise to my right hon. Friend for apparently having got it totally wrong, according to my right hon. Friend who is sitting here, and will the hon. Member say when he is going to take my right hon. Friend apart?

Mr. Atkinson: I hope I have done that in the sense that I have exposed what the right hon. Gentleman means when he tries to camouflage his argument. I feel it is our responsibility to tear away that camouflage from his argument and to put the facts into language that people are able to understand, especially when the right hon. Gentleman acts so deviously in covering up the real meaning of his

words. That is the job of Parliament and I hope that we have done that job.

Mr. Dykes: On a point of order. I apologise for interrupting, Mr. Speaker, but undue repetition is also——

Mr. Speaker: Order. That is a question for the Chair.

Mr. Atkinson: I shall now conclude my remarks about the situation as the Labour Party sees it. The TUC in its submissions to the Government in July and the Labour Party in statements issued on two occasions say that we are now calling for
the restoration of voluntary collective bargaining",
added to which the TUC document contains a further quotation which says that
All prices must be legally and rigidly controlled".
We therefore say that these two things must be taken together.
Thus, those Conservatives who say that the Labour Party alternative is to advocate free collective wage bargaining while at the same time calling for price control throughout the economy, not only for foodstuffs but for other consumer products, are absolutely right. That is the policy of the Labour Party, and all those newspapers which reported recently that overtures had been made to the TUC by the Parliamentary Labour Party to seek a review of that policy have been totally wrong. The Labour Party is not asking the trade unions to reconsider that aspect of policy. It is upon that basis that we shall contest a General Election and it is the basis of the policy which we advocate.
Why is it the correct policy? The first thing to be made clear is that we recognise the changing character of the system in which we live. Gone are the days of entrepreneurial capitalism as such. We are now moving into a period of managed capitalism. We are conscious of the changes that are taking place and of the need for us to pursue the policy we advocate. The whole process of mergers, multinationals and State industry and the fact that now no more than 100 firms dominate the economy and have established a system of price leadership emphasises the need for our policy.
The big multinationals, and certainly the largest companies in this country, now raise their capital or investment


from fixed-interest borrowing rather than by going to the market as they did in the old entrepreneurial conditions. Therefore, we define managerial capitalism not as something to do with personnel within the system but as an economy where less than 30 per cent. of the price system remains what is euphemistically called a free market system. In other words, when more than 70 per cent. of the market is non-competitive and is managed we say that we have moved into a period of managed capitalism. That is the situation that we see at the moment.
Recognising these changes, there is no doubt that, whatever the rate of growth within the economy, price inflation is inevitable. It is built into the system and it is directly related to the level of investment in production industries. It is from our analysis of that situation that we have concluded the Government intervention in the price system must be across the board and that we must build a system of management using Parliament so that our intervention to bring about a greater redistribution of wealth is within the price system and in no other way. Therefore, we look upon it as an instrument of economic management, a technique that I hope we shall develop. Our economic policy will involve price control of that sort.
This highlights the difference between the Labour Party and the Tories in the sense that they argue that there should be wage control in the absence of price maxima. They talk about profit control giving the desired result but they have dismissed the argument for any sort of direct intervention in the price system. However, we take the opposite view. This demonstrates more clearly than any other aspect of policy the difference between the Conservative representatives of capital on their side of the House and the representatives of labour on this side.
In arguing the case for a price strategy in the situation facing the Government, we say that dealing with the existing price system and allocating the resources of the country is a matter of priorities, and that the Opposition must intervene to make sure that priority is given to those whom we represent. That is the basis of our intervention.
Prices controlled in that way must be linked to a system of subsidies and

variable purchase tax. In that sense we present a comprehensive analysis of the system as we see it and the sort of things we want to introduce. We argue against the present Government's concept of a prices and incomes policy. We reject it totally because it is alien to the kind of society that we foresee and the kind of society for which we argue.
It is because we believe that we should now be talking about the price of our production and not merely about one aspect or one element of it in the price structure that we resent the policy being pursued by the Government. If the Government were prepared to talk about prices in the coal industry, they would not be faced with the present impasse. The Labour Party's conclusion from experience throughout Europe is that wage restraint in its present rigid form is not possible and does irrevocable damage to the economy and to the whole of the wage structure within the country. Therefore, we reject such a policy.
Given the time, one could discuss many other aspects of the prices and incomes policy which we reject. Conservative members are prisoners of their own policy. They have reached the situation of saying that there can be no deviation from phase 3, and that has led many Members to talk about a General Election as being the only way out of the Government's impasse.
But that is not on. Conservative Members have rejected that idea because they want to remain absolutely rigid in their arguments. A spring election would be contested on the basis of permanent wage control. That would be the issue. But that is not the point we are discussing today. Our concern today is that the Government have introduced the most brutal Budget that has been seen not only in post-war years but in the 'thirties too.
The Government have been enabled "at a stroke" to introduce a shortened working week throughout industry. I return to the argument employed by the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West that to get the equivalent of this degree of short-time working as a deflationary measure from 1st January it would be necessary to have about one-fifth of the total working force unemployed in the manufacturing and production industries.
When these fiscal and monetary methods are used normally to deflate the economy, they are unselective. It is when deflation is aimed at the manufacturing and production industries that there has to be such an enormous cut-back in the economy in order to attain the reductions which the Government now seek.
It is a vicious Budget in that sense, because the Prime Minister's statement must be read alongside that of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. It is obviously part of their plan to talk about three-day industrial working, for however short a period. The economists suggest that if it operates for about 12 weeks from now, a £400 million saving on our balance of payments will be achieved and that that is one way in which to correct the economy. It is those calculations which fit into the calculations of the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West when he talks about an enormous rise in the level of unemployment as a solution to the problem.
I can see, Mr. Speaker, that you are getting somewhat upset—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]—but this may be the last occasion on which I shall speak in the House. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]

Mr. Speaker: Order. I am not getting upset, as the hon. Member puts it, but he has spoken for 24 minutes. I hope he will conclude his speech fairly soon.

Mr. Atkinson: It is a costly 24 minutes, Mr. Speaker. I have sat listening to the debate, as many other hon. Members have done, for more than 13½ hours. I do not know what the methods are or how many times hon. Members speak, but my last comments in the House on economic matters were made on 24th February of this year. I am not trespassing on other hon. Members' time. I am not being greedy. I do not hog the place. You, Mr. Speaker, are bouncing up and down in outrage saying that it is about time this fellow shut up. I have tried to set out my arguments in 24 minutes as cogently as I can on what I believe to be important issues facing the British Labour movement as opposed to some of the issues which Tory Members wrap up in a load of camouflage.
Other hon. Members have spoken for 35 minutes. If I am offending my comrades

on this side of the House I apologise, and I shall not do it again. I am sorry to upset the Chair, but it is important that we should try to set out the principles in which we believe, and this is the debate and the time for that to be done. If by decree or some other method I receive no priority in the future, so be it, but I have been able to contribute something by talking about the principles on which we have based our movement and about what we are trying to do in the future.
One of the difficulties on the Left of the British Labour movement is that of communicating with our people. The only way in which that can be done is by travelling many miles throughout the country. Hon. Gentlemen opposite may smile, but the Conservatives almost totally control the British Press and nearly all broadcasting and television is slanted towards their arguments. That is their only reason for objecting to some of the freedoms of television. It is extremely difficult for the Left of the Labour movement to communicate with anything approaching an audience throughout the country. This is the only way in which it can be done, whether or not it is reported. There is an audience here, and I do not apologise for going on about the principles facing us.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member said that I was upset over the length of his speech. I was not the least bit upset, but if hon. Members speak for so long they deprive other hon. Members of the chance of speaking.

5.52 p.m.

Mr. Christopher Tugendhat: I, too, have sat through the whole debate, and it is fair to say that the speech of the lion. Member for Tottenham (Mr. Atkinson) was one of the longest. I leave it to the rest of the House to judge whether other Opposition Members who may be squeezed out as a result could not have put the time to better use.
Hon. Members who have spoken so far seem to be united on one point, and that is that we face both an internal and an external problem. I wish to deal with the external problem of oil supplies to this country, but before doing so I must declare an interest. I am a director of two oil companies and I have been interested


in the international oil industry for most of my working life, having written about it in the Financial Times before coming to the House.
Having stated my interest, I probably carry the House with me when I say that we are all agreed that the problem we face is a short- to medium-term one in the sense that everyone assumes that in the 'eighties we shall have a variety of different fuels to call on in this country and outside.
We have to try to find some way of getting through the next seven or eight years. There is no doubt that during that time we shall face considerable difficulties. The oil producers want the highest possible price, and they are determined to keep supplies tight during this time. As the hon. Member for Ashfield (Mr. Marquand) said, the days of cheap energy are over, but even if they return they will not do so for a number of years. That being so, all industrialised countries will face a grave problem regarding both industrial costs and balance of payments.
In those circumstances, it is vital that the Governments of the consumer countries play a much more active rôle in international oil matters than has been the case hitherto. They must endeavour to work closely together. By that I do not mean working closely together against the producer countries. I mean working closely with each other and in combination with the Governments of the producer countries.
It is up to the Governments to establish the framework for the industry. That having been established, and the Governments having dealt with the important points of policy—to which I shall return in a moment—the companies should then be left to organise the industrial matters of exploration and production in our own areas such as the North Sea, refining, distribution, marketing and supplies. The companies will operate within a framework organised by Governments, but the problems which the Governments will have to face will be severe, and my main fear is of a scramble for scarce supplies.
It could be argued that the oil producers have not been responsible for putting up the price of oil in recent years. It could be argued with a good deal of truth that the main reason why prices have risen so astronomically in recent years is that there has been so much pressure

of competition from consumers. The catalyst for this is the fact that the Governments of the oil-producing States have acquired a stake in the concessions in their own countries. They have therefore had participation oil under their own control, and this oil is being bid for by organisations, groups and companies from consumer countries.
We have seen prices bid up to nearly 17 dollars a barrel in Nigeria, and the same sort of thing has happened in Iran. In Iran the price per barrel is about three times the posted price. My fear is that these auctions in which consumers bid against each other could lead to a further escalation in prices, which would be very much to the detriment and disadvantage of all those who import oil.
This is a dangerous situation and one that will get worse, because the Governments of the producer countries will accelerate the rate at which they take over concessions in their own countries. Therefore participation oil, instead of being a relatively small proportion of the total volume of oil entering world markets, will become very much greater and within the foreseeable future will account for the bulk of the oil entering world markets. In those circumstances it is possible that auctions of the sort that we have seen recently in Nigeria and Iran will become the principal determinant of oil prices.
If that should happen, the price of oil will go through the roof and that will have a terrible effect on the people, rich and poor, who live in all those countries which import oil. Because of that, it is essential that the Governments of the consumer countries co-operate more closely. I mean primarily those from North America, Europe and Japan. Only Governments can handle problems of this nature.
The second priority with which we shall have to deal is the provision of some form of incentive to oil-producing nations to produce the oil which the world needs. Some countries will be anxious to do so in any event. Iran and Nigeria, which have large populations with low standards of living and which have embarked upon ambitious and far-reaching development plans, will be anxious to sell to the world as much oil as they can produce at the right price. But Saudi Arabia, Abu Dhabi


and Kuwait, which have small populations and astronomical financial reserves and earning power, will be much more reluctant to provide the world with the oil that it needs. Several of their Ministers have said as much.
In those circumstances we must devise incentives for the countries to produce the oil that we require. They have had bad experiences in investing in sterling and dollar-dominated investments as a result of devaluations. If they are to produce the oil we want, they will seek the opportunity for capital appreciation. I do not mean capital appreciation per se, but capital appreciation of a more rapid nature than the increase in the value of oil in the ground, because the oil in the ground is in itself a good investment.
This is a complicated subject, and a short speech in a debate of this nature is not, unfortunately, the time to go into details of how that can best be done. It is fair to say, however, that the only possible outlet that will provide the sort of opportunities that these Governments and their peoples will need is investment in the capital formation of the West. The amount of money will be substantial, but, if we assume that oil producers will be generating revenue surplus to their requirements of 50 billion dollars a year, at the end of the decade that would be only about 5 per cent. of total capital formation of the West.
Equally important is the need to bring the oil-producing nations much more closely into the negotiations for creating a new international monetary system. We all know that the balances of the oil producers will be a major factor in international financial affairs. It is important that the holders of those balances should feel that they have a stake in the system. If they do not feel that they have such a stake they will disrupt the system, and if they do not have a stake in it there is a grave danger that their large resources will lead to considerable destabilisations. In those circumstances, it is essential to give oil-producing nations the importance that they deserve in international financial negotiations.
It is vitally important too that the West should do everything possible to encourage these oil-producing countries to

embark upon major industrialisation and development programmes within their own countries. I envisage great opportunities for money from oil-producing States, combined with Western technology and help, to do something to raise living standards not only in the oil-producing countries but throughout the rest of the Arab world. This should also be done in the underdeveloped and developing countries, which are far more badly hit than we are by the increased price of oil and have none of the offsetting factors that we have.
The oil-producing countries have a duty to endeavour to provide some kind of redress to the Third World for the effects of what is happening. One of the best ways in which that can be done is by combining the vast amount of money in the oil-producing countries with Western industrial and technological know-how in projects in countries such as India and many others.
These are complicated matters of a far-reaching nature. We must demand that the Governments of the oil-consuming nations play a more active rôle in the international oil industry than has hitherto been the case, and they should concentrate on two matters. The first is the price of oil and the factors that will affect it. The type of arrangement that will have a bearing on the price of oil must be determined in negotiations between the two sides. The second matter is volume and the considerations that will affect the amount of oil produced by the oil-producing countries.
Those two factors, price and volume, should be put into a wider context of mutual industrial and technological development for the benefit not only of the oil-producing countries but of the developing countries of the Third World. They should also be put into the wider context of financial and monetary cooperation.
I believe that the industrial aspects of the industry—for example, refining, marketing, distribution and exploration and production within our own areas such as the North Sea—are best left to the companies but that the framework within which the companies operate should be established by the Governments of producer and consumer countries working side by side and in co-operation with each other.

6.40 p.m.

Mr. John Cronin: The hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Tugendhat) will forgive me if I do not follow his speech in detail, but I am anxious to keep mine as short as possibic to assist other hen. Members who wish to take part in the debate.
There is general agreement on both sides of the House with the opening remark of the Chancellor of the Exchequer on Monday that the situation we now face is by far the gravest since the war. A lot of people, especially on this side of the House, will agree that the responsibility for that grave situation lies entirely at the Chancellor's door.
When the Labour Government left office in 1970 they left behind them, thanks to prudent measures of my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Stechford (Mr. Roy Jenkins), a state of real economic strength, with a massive balance of payments surplus. Now, we find the economic situation totally catastrophic. The most urgent need is to do something about our balance of trade, now running at a deficit at an annual rate of £3,000 million.
The Chancellor's measures announced on Monday are quite inadequate. One feels oneself somewhat in the position of seeing a man bleeding to death and someone applying a piece of sticking plaster. The effects of the Chancellor's measures will be negligible in correcting the balance of payments situation. The cuts in public expenditure will not take place until towards the end of 1974, and then in any case one is expecting a world recession. But we know that there is already a slackening in public expenditure, so that these new cuts are more likely to be theoretical than actual in their effect.
The Chancellor gave no indication of the nature of the cuts. He referred to them in a most general way. We do not know, for example, whether they are to apply mostly to hospitals, schools or the Armed Forces. He gave no idea of the basis of his calculations. So this aspect of his measures seems to be of limited nature and rather nebulous as a prospect.
The right hon. Gentleman has increased the burden on surtax payers, but this works out on average at about £90 for every surtax payer. That is rather more perhaps than the cost of a suit. It is

rather difficult to believe that surtax payers will be really upset by that at a time when the whole country is expecting a severe financial blow.
Nothing has been done by the Chancellor to deal with the real scandal—the ability to set interest payments against taxation. This is one of the economic situations which are dividing society more and more, making the rich richer and having a deleterious effect on the poor. There has been no attempt to have a more effective tax on people of higher incomes. There is certainly room for much bigger increases in taxation on higher incomes than the right hon. Gentleman has attempted.
Most people are dismayed by the inadequacy of the Chancellor's measures to deal with property speculators. Even Tory Members are beginning to feel some dismay about it. Such speculation is one of the obscene scandals of the present age in that a group of people, whose work is in any case of a parasitic nature, should amass enormous fortunes at the expense of all of us and can do so with every help and encouragement from the Government.
The Chancellor himself said that all that can be raised by taxation on property appreciation will be about £80 million a year. The Metropolitan Estate & Property Corporation, the largest of these companies, alone since 1969 has seen an increase in its portfolio values of £400 million but has paid only £21 million in taxation. One can say the same of most other property companies.
Then one must remember the individuals involved. The famous Mr. Harry Hyams started some years ago with a capital of £50,000, while the noble Lord, Lord Samuel of Wych Cross, started with a capital of £19,000. The total capital of these two gentlemen is now assessed at about £500 million in their own personal holdings. Why is it that the Government are so much in favour of people who are doing this?

Mr. Arthur Lewis: Because they are contributing to Conservative Party funds.

Mr. Cronin: I do not think that even that is a substantial factor, but it is astonishing that the Government cannot find effective measures to cope with something which is one of the great scandals of the age.
One wonders why the Chancellor's measures are so inadequate. One wonders whether there is not some dishonesty behind them. Is he deliberately avoiding taking effective action in the hope that the present industrial troubles will rub some unpopularity off on to the Labour Party, so that the Government may have an election, win it and then introduce the really effective deflationary measures needed after the election? Is that the trap being prepared for the electorate? If that is the case, the Government are likely to have a serious disappointment.
The Prime Minister's speech yesterday gave a lot of credence to the views expressed by the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) some weeks ago. The right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West expressed doubt as to the Prime Minister's mental stability. When one hears the Prime Minister saying that the Government propose to continue having a three-day week until the miners return to normal work, one cannot help feeling that there is a good deal of strength in the argument of the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West. One feels that the Prime Minister is really becoming unhinged. There is a slight feeling that we have a General Amin sitting on the Treasury Bench.
The Prime Minister's obstinacy about this has no affinity to virtue or wisdom. The miners are determined to have a fair deal and are not to be talked out of it. The Leicestershire and South Derbyshire miners in my constituency are firmly behind the industrial action taken by the NUM. If they are a sample of the psychological attitude of the miners, as I am sure they are, there is no question of the miners giving in.
The miners are particularly affronted by the despicable tactics of the Prime Minister and the Government in suggesting first of all that their industrial action is illegal. But this again is part of the delusion of grandeur, which is a serious psychological symptom. Again, it has been suggested that the miners are in conflict with Parliament, but even the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West has insisted that this is an. absurdity.
The important thing we have to bear in mind is that the cost of continuing the

three-day week must be thousands of times the cost of giving the miners the little they want. It is incredible folly. Because of the Prime Minister's reckless adherence to phase 3, he intends to subject the country to enormously more economic hardship than it would suffer if the miners were given their modest requirement.
We have to accept that coal is a very cheap form of energy and that, with the rundown in the industry's manpower which is taking place, the miners have to be paid more sooner or later. It is so obvious that there can be no escape from it. Why do we have to go through the horrible tragedy of having three-day working week after week when paying the miners would put an end to this economic disaster?
The Secretary of State for Employment suggested that to pay the miners what they require would have a very inflationary effect. Could any effect be more inflationary than mass unemployment resulting from a three-day week, accompanied by unemployment benefits, which will be spent in the usual way? This will be infinitely more inflationary than settling the miners' comparatively modest claim.
The Government should face the facts of political power. The miners have control of the industry of this country; there is no escaping from that. They cannot be talked out of the situation by the words of the Prime Minister and other Ministers. The miners must receive some concession. Confrontation will achieve nothing but an increasingly disastrous effect.
Few hon. Members, on either side, would disagree that, from the point of view of justice and equity, the miners require to be paid much more than at present. Their work is most arduous, dirty, unhealthy, dangerous and inconvenient, and it involves living in social isolation. How can we get men to continue working under such conditions when it is proposed to pay them rather less than some people get for sweeping the floors of motor car factories? It is an absurd situation.
The miners are hardworking, courageous and loyal members of the community. The time is overdue for the Government to face the facts and to make sure that the miners have a substantial concession which would end the present tragic situation.
One of the worst aspects of the Chancellor of the Exchequer's measures—and perhaps the worst aspect of the Prime Minister's speech yesterday—was that no concession has been made, and nothing has been done to cope with the appalling divided state of the country. A small minority of people are enjoying the profits and a large majority are carrying the burdens. That is the psychological reason behind all the industrial disorders. The Chancellor's measures have done nothing helpful. There has been no increase in taxation of the higher incomes groups. The Government do not intend to deal with the anomalies of the Industrial Relations Act or to do anything about the Housing Finance Act. Neither do they intend to deal with the iniquity of tax relief on interest payments.
There is nothing in the Government measures, at this crisis in our lives, for the impoverished people of the low income groups. There is nothing for the trade unions, for hardworking, respectable people. The time has come for the Government to get out and to make way for people who can run the country in a less catastrophic manner.

6.53 p.m.

Mr. Christopher Woodhouse: The speech by the hon. Member for Loughborough (Mr. Cronin) has clearly illustrated what has been in my mind throughout the debate, namely, that there are really two debates taking place concurrently. The hon. Gentleman has contributed to both of those debates, but I shall contribute to only one.
The subject of one debate is whether the Government have got their calculations right. The subject of the other debate is whether they have got their psychology right. I shall not contribute to the debate on the arithmetic of the measures announced this week, except to say that when I was a member of the Select Committee on Public Expenditure a year or two ago I gained the distinct impression from Treasury evidence that, as a general rule, cuts in public expenditure contained a large degree of fantasy because estimates of public expenditure for years ahead contained in the first place an element of very arbitrary calculation.
The main question is the psychological one. There are two schools of thought

about it, both inside the House and outside. There are those who contemplate a fight to the finish and those who look forward to a truce and a closing of the ranks. I take my place unhesitatingly with the second group.
It is important to realise that a closing of ranks will not come about simply by agreeing to let bygones be bygones any more than it will come about by forcing an unconditional surrender. It will come about only by finding common ground, however small to begin with, on which we can all agree and which we can exploit and expand together.
I shall suggest one or two areas in which this is still possible. The first is in industrial relations. Everyone with any industrial experience knows that the Industrial Relations Act is not working. That is partly—but only partly—because of the refusal of many trade unions to operate it or to recognise the National Industrial Relations Court. The boycott of the court is only partial. In a number of cases trade unions are refusing to plead in the court, but having allowed a case to go against them by default they are taking the case to the Appeal Court, thus saving face in an expensive and undesirable way.
But that is only part of the reason. The main reason is that the Act was clumsily drafted and inadequately debated. Anyone on this side of the House who says that naturally invites the question "Why did you vote for it in the first place?" My answer is that I was completely persuaded that an industrial relations Act was necessary. I believed that it was right in principle. I suggested on Second Reading that there were a number of imperfections in the Bill as it was drafted and I did my best at later stages, whenever it was possible to get a word in edgeways, to try to improve the drafting, and I declined to vote for the premature guillotine on the Bill.
But what I do not believe, however firmly it may be said by Opposition Members, is that the Act will ever be repealed in toto. I have the support—very distinguished support—of the late Lord Donovan in saying that. It is equally certain that the Act will be reviewed and amended, probably drastically, and the sooner that is done the better. I hope that the new Secretary


of State will make his intention clear on this matter, not by the kind of crafty ambiguities with which he has swept the Irish problem under the carpet temporarily, but by making frank declarations that the Act will be amended in this present Parliament. If he does so, many hon. Members on this side of the House, and elsewhere, will be ready with constructive suggestions.
The second area in which common ground can still be found is that of the cost of living. Everybody agrees, of course, that those who are by far the worst afflicted by inflation today are those living on small fixed incomes, especially pensioners. The Government believe that, if current wage claims were met in full, the inflationary effect would be so severe that everybody would suffer, and the pensioners would suffer worst of all.
Therefore, on the face of it, there seems to be a conflict between the interests of trade unionists and of pensioners. However, a way round the conflict has been available to the Government for more than a year. At about this time last year there was a mass lobby of trade unionists at the House in favour of an increase of pensions to £10 a week for the single pensioner and £16 a week for a married couple. When the trade unionists from Oxford saw me on that occasion I asked them whether they realised that such an increase would inevitably be severely inflationary, unless accompanied by a willingness on their part to abate their wage claims or in some way to compensate for the increase. They unhesitatingly replied "Yes". They said that they recognised that fact, and I therefore agreed to support them.
Unfortunately the Government did not then have the imagination to appreciate that they had before them, offered by the trade unions, a framework in which the interests of workers and pensioners could be reconciled and harmonised, instead of being in competition with each other, as in the past. The significance of that suggestion was precisely that it was the trade unionists who offered it. I hope that the offer may still be open and that the opportunity will not be missed again.
The last point I have to make is again one of psychological significance. It was referred to by the hon. Member for Loughborough. My right hon. Friend the

Chancellor of the Exchequer has recognised that property speculators are today the most unpopular creatures in the country. There is one at least whom many of us would like to see clapped in the Tower of London, if not in Centre Point. But there is a valid distinction, which other hon. Members on this side have drawn, between the property speculator and a property developer. A speculator simply buys and sells. A developer performs an essential function, which would still have to be performed even if all those in business today were put out of business.
This contrast was sharply illustrated yesterday in the centre pages of The Times. On the left-hand page there was a nauseating story about a group of property tycoons engaged in a competition in the game of Monopoly. On the right-hand page there was a letter from the President of the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors pointing out clearly and forcefully the arguments against imagining that it was possible for development to be a function of local authorities or of the central Government. What he said was perfectly true.
Indeed, many local authorities, particularly those in the old counties, are not equipped even to carry out their present-day planning functions. I speak from experience. I must declare an interest because I am a director of a construction company, but it is a construction company which wants to build houses and other useful buildings. It does not want to be compelled, as it is compelled today by the dilatoriness and incompetence of many local planning authorities, to become, against its will, a land speculator.
The result of that dilatoriness and incompetence is that many houses built today cost as much as 50 per cent. more than they need have cost, because by their procedures, the local planning authorities delay the building by anything up to two years. The best service that the Government could perform in this area would be to shake up local authority planning drastically and severely and impose a much firmer central direction upon it.
I have mentioned just a few areas in which I believe that all of us could find common ground. I hope that the Government will explore them, and that they


will exploit and expand all such areas, rather than be misled into conflicts which can end only in unconditional surrender on one side and ruin on both.

7.5 p.m.

Mr. Robert Woof: In following (he hon. Member for Oxford (Mr. Woodhouse), I promise to abide by Mr. Speaker's request for brevity.
From the objective of trying to grasp the impact of the present economic and energy crisis, the force of the alarming circumstances must bring a haunting sense of meaning.
Confining attention on the intensive situation, the magnitude of short-time working that is unhappily anticipated, and, if I may say so, as Karl Marx interpreted the unemployed as the industrial reserve army, in proportion it will systematically suppress production for every leading form of industrial activity with serious implications of essential services.
We are not unmindful of the economic mould which governs most of our day-today living, but now aggravated by the energy shortage and restricted fuel supplies, to put it very crudely, it will be the coldest of comfort of personal suffering to those who want to get warmth, a light in their home, or to those who have their jobs in industry disrupted, and are sent home to face all the inconveniences.
The harsh realities have staggered the imagination of many. Even thousands and thousands of Tories throughout the land see the cutrain rising upon what looks to be a prolonged period of stagnation, which will affect the economic health of the country.
The dreadful possibilities are, however, dominated by the emergence of causes, with the centre of gravity of antagonisms, and the marshalling of strengths, practically unknown to industrial text books.
There is nothing within the range of human experience to deny the fact that, when representatives of organised labour indicate their disapproval of traditional capitalist solutions to capitalist problems they are taken to task for lack of vision, and not applying their minds to industrial realities, in bringing a strong sense of duty on matters more subject to human decision.
Suddenly, in the past few days, the nation has been made to become highly sensitive and conscious in being overtaken by a tidal wave of catastrophic affairs. We have read acres of comment and explanations which have appeared beneath the headlines, and prominent among them is the discrediting of the miners with mounting criticism for their obstinacy and doing their worst, even from the Prime Minister downwards.
Rightly interpreted, we would do well to be worried about it. We have landed in a great maelstrom of economic antagonism. It is not new. It has not suddenly cropped up this month—it has been drifting with us for a very long time. It lies at the root of realising the likelihood that it would render comfortable existence more uncertain than ever before.
So why do we argue that the crisis of coal production should not have reached the degree that it has in the present atmosphere of dramatic urgency? It is like Rip Van Winkle waking up again, because it has been debated and analysed so thoroughly by the so-called experts that its outlines have become quite wearisomely familiar.
Ever since 1957, we have been bombarded by statements that the coal mining industry is dying. Statements have been made, which must be accepted, that it is inevitable, through the development of nuclear power, North Sea gas and oil and the products of technology. Such gospel was preached and impressed upon us as so great and crucial that a change in the relations of production would be so rapidly brought about.
In constructively criticising past Governments' energy programmes we requested that we should not make the economy dependent on imported fuels and, in particular, when the scramble for markets was going on, that powerful international oil monopolies should not be allowed to intrude in the traditional coal markets. That is now buried in the dustbin of history.
As every hon. Member is aware, the present oil crisis is unpleasant and unpredictable for British industry. It is clear that the once declared paramount and considered cheap imported fuel upon which the economy developed is now over—it is irretrievable. It has been well circulated that the price of oil, even


although if normal supplies were to be resumed at any time in the future, will impose a whole series of difficulties on the economy and an increased cost of living.
But now a wide range of industry is confused and bewildered by the severity of the new measure to conserve all the available sources of energy. Many of them are heavily dependent on taking 40 per cent. of the power from the national grid, of which coal supply to the power stations accounts for 70 per cent. of electricity generation. This must be highly valued and cannot be belittled by the nation.
The cruelty of economic progress is, however, just as terrible as the cruelty of nature—it takes no account of feelings or passions. Only when the material basis of individual and social life is fully assured does the higher development of human intelligence and character become apparent.
It is interesting that in assessing the various conflicts and the rôle of the pattern of a prolonged cutback in production, speaking as trade unionists, we want to make clear that we do not wish to see a charter of uncertainty of employment, hoping for better times in a depressed level of production and productivity, accompanied by living standards literally falling in a society where inequalities are so glaring. It is common currency of politics to ask how trade unionists can be expected to exercise restraint in the face of rising living costs. It is almost despairing to read how wholesale prices are likely to continue to rise sharply in the months ahead, because they have still not experienced the full brunt of the sharp increases in import prices over recent months, and not forgetting coming on top of the well-established higher prices that have been inflicted upon us through the Government's acceptance of the common agricultural policy of the Common Market.
These are some of the rock-bottom facts of life as they affect ordinary people, but as a nation we are in effect in danger of losing faith in ourselves, and in the ordinary sense of making use of the word "confidence", how are we to respond to the national mood with a better quality of decision? Even in the Black Hole of Calcutta the richest man there would have given all that he possessed to get the

door or the window opened to let in some air in order to survive. Is not that an analogy of the present situation?
But in all the exceptional circumstances we do not feel that the final step to put the situation on a more favourable keel to avoid industrial paralysis has yet been taken. We all understand that it is a period of fear, uneasiness and one of perilous balance that we cannot afford to neglect when demands for higher material standards of life rest on intensifying international competition with vital production for home and abroad that will not be capable of being delivered.
It may well be that events are overwhelming and that many are trapped by circumstances, but what one considers to be defence another considers to be a threat. It is happening all round us but, as the demand for coal is vital to the wheels of industry, it must be unanswerable—it must be obvious—that we cannot disregard the loyalty of the men employed in the mining industry who produce the coal that is needed now more than ever. The Secretary of State for Employment today referred to reconciliation. I only hope when he meets the mineworkers' leaders tomorrow that he will think of the biblical phase,
Him that cometh unto me, I will in no wise cast out".
That, perhaps, is now of no importance but my final word is that unless the Government come forward with more concrete proposals and undertakings of action to break the deadlock, in the interests not only of the miners but of the nation as a whole, then I am afraid, in human and economic terms, it will have such serious repercussions on many sectors of industry that the consequences will not be difficult to ignore, even by the most naive.

7.20 p.m.

Mr. Derek Coombs: It is tragic that not only does an expanding economy have to come to a halt because of the oil crisis but now, due to industrial action, we may have to switch off to the point that our gross domestic product will fall much faster than elsewhere. From striving to expand more than most other countries, we shall now go backwards faster than anybody else.
The major responsibility for all this lies with the extreme militants in the


National Union of Mineworkers. I have talked to some of their top officials and it has been suggested to me that stage 3 is attractive, and that if it had not been called stage 3 the offer would have been accepted. One official to whom I talked even went on to suggest that a lower offer with a higher basic would go down well with the militants, provided that it breached our counter-inflation policy. It is abundantly clear, therefore, that this is not really an industrial dispute. It is a political act by a few men who are using the vast strength of the miners for their own ends. Their prime interest clearly is not the miner's wage. Their political motives are a kind of revolution, and the miners and the public should know this.
Obviously the Government cannot accept this situation, for we are all in this together. If the miners had been offered a 5 per cent. wage increase. I could understand this refusal to compromise. But can anyone seriously suggest that 16½ per cent. is not a very generous offer?

Mr. Michael McGuire: But it is not 16½ per cent.

Mr. Coombs: Labour Members in their hearts know that it is 16½ per cent., altough they say otherwise. Here we have the miners turning down an offer of £44 million—not a small sum—which comes to almost £5 per week on average, with some standing to pick up as much as £9 per week extra. It should be understood that the amount that this increase will be worth in real terms in a year's time depends directly on the rate of inflation—and that, in turn, will depend on the impact of the miners' go-slow on the national economy. A speedy settlement must be in their own interests. It will be tragic if we can settle matters in this country only at the expense of 2 million or 3 million unemployed and through drastic cuts in living standards and a siege economy, which could do nearly as much as the shortage of Arab oil to set off a world depression. Therefore, there should be a compromise. I believe that the solution lies in finding some way, over the next few critical years, of encouraging men to stay in the industry and so substantially reduce the constant labour drain.
In the light of present circumstances the Coal Industry Act could be rearranged so that any miner who stays in his job for a period, of say, three or five years would receive a lump sum at the end of that time. To avoid his leaving the industry after the three and five year stages, the money could then be set aside by the National Coal Board and paid to him on retirement independent of his normal pension entitlement.
Surely if we are prepared to consider an incentive scheme for the Arab States to maintain the quantity and price of oil, it is reasonable that a long-term scheme of this kind could be envisaged to encourage the miners to remain in their industry, particularly as it would not require new funds but only a reallocation of existing resources.
We all appreciate that the miner's job is both dirty and dangerous. But this is not new. The job has been dirty and dangerous since mining began. Are we now to believe that dirt and danger suddenly became apparent in one flash of understanding? If dirt and danger are the criteria, it could be argued that a miner is worth £500 a week. But if that is so, what of the worth of others? A man with an empty grate and an acute appendicitis knows the relative worth of a nurse and a miner. Each worker has a purely arbitrary value. Each can think of a thousand reasons why he should be paid more than the next man. If one section of the community exerts its influence to the extent that it seriously impairs or destroys all other sections, it can in the long term be judged only as provocative.
This is the situation in which the miners unfortunately have been placed by their leaders. Their leadership has set the value, made the valuations, charted the course and here we see a form of conduct only thinly disguised as a democratic process. In the first place, it might have been a question of miners versus the Coal Board. Then it became miners versus the Government. Now it looks very much like miners versus the people. In the general show of solidarity this fact might well have escaped the mining community. There is a point where sentiment begins to run out, where sympathy turns to hardness and where hardness turns to hostility. Could it be that this point is not far away?

Mr. McGuire: Section 144 of the Industrial Relations Act will cure the hon. Gentleman's problems.

Mr. Coombs: Any mining leader who thinks——

Mr. McGuire: Has the hon. Member thought about Section 144?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. E. L. Mallalieu): The hon. Member for Ince (Mr. McGuire) must not address the House from a sedentary position.

Mr. McGuire: If the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Mr. Coombs) will give way, I could make my point.

Mr. Coombs: Very well, I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. McGuire: The hon. Gentleman's remarks have excited my interest so much that I must make one important point to him. What does the hon. Gentleman think will be the result of a ballot of the mineworkers in terms of accepting their leaders' advice?

Mr. Coombs: I do not advocate a ballot. I think that in all probability the miners would support their leaders. This does not affect my point that the leaders are misleading the miners. Any mining leader who thinks that his argument is supported by the country as a whole is sadly misinformed. The country is weary of blackmail. There has to be a middle way. It is up to the miners' leaders to show real leadership and to help the Government and the country to get back on the right path. If they really wish to help their members if they really wish to help their country they should show now that they are reasonable and fair-minded men.

7.28 p.m.

Mr. J. D. Dormand: I wish that I had the opportunity to take up many of the points made by the hon. Member for Birmingham. Yardley (Mr. Coombs), it was a controversial speech, but it was naive and did not recognise the realities of the situation. However, I intend to obey the injunction laid down by Mr. Speaker at the beginning of the debate and I shall shorten my speech.
Although this has tended to be a wide-ranging debate, inevitably it has concentrated largely, though not entirely, on the

question of energy supplies, and I am glad that most speeches have dealt with the coal industry. During the miners' strike last year, I spent a great deal of time with the miners in my constituency. I have 8,000 miners in my constituency and I have met the miners in their picket lines, at meetings and elsewhere. While they were determined to fight and win that dispute, as they did, they at all times recognised the danger to the pits and the possible closures which might arise from lack of maintenance. That factor was ever present in their minds. But when this point is put to them in the present dispute, there is a very different reply. They say, "Very well, if it means closing the pit, then close it. We have had enough. We'll get a job more fitted to human beings."
Let me tell the Government, and the Prime Minister in particular, that there is now a fundamental change of attitude on the part of the miners towards the pit. My authority for saying this is that I come from a mining family and have lived among miners all my life. I feel the change very clearly. It is a brand-new factor in the situation and it is something which has not existed before. This situation can have the most serious consequences not only for the mining industry but, in view of the new circumstances, for the country as a whole. We shall become more dependent on coal than ever before and we should thank our lucky stars that we have so much coal beneath our soil.
One part of the solution to our future difficulties is to ensure that the miners remain at the top of the industrial wages league, however frequently adjustments have to be. The miners' present position completely exposes the great weakness of the Government's incomes policy. I refer to its rigidity. I had intended to expand on this, but my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition, and also my right hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley (Mr. Mason), in an excellent speech, spelt this out in detail and therefore I shall refrain from repeating that argument. I say merely that I know of no previous incomes policy, from the Stafford Cripps policy of 1948 to that of the last Labour Government, which has not made provision for circumstances which exactly currently exist in the mining industry.
The disagreeable nature of the miners' work makes it unique. The Prime Minister said yesterday that the miners are not unique. He knows full well that no other job kills 50 men a year in accidents, kills even more from pneumoconiosis, injures more than any other six industries put together and has daily working conditions which would not be tolerated for one hour in any factory these days. It is those factors which make the coal industry unique. Its uniqueness together with the disastrous net wastage from the industry make it imperative that the Government look at the wage claim outside phase 3.
I do not know why the Government are so obstinate about this. They need not be. I am sure that the people realise that the circumstances are so very different from those which existed when the legislation went through this House, and that they would support a change of mind on the part of the Government in the present critical situation.
It is recognised generally now that we shall be heavily dependent on coal for a long time to come. In those circumstances I want to ask three specific questions.
What is to be done about the recent finds of coal at Selby and in Oxford-shire, which are very extensive? I understand that the National Coal Board has not yet made up its mind. Will the Government bring pressure to bear on the exploitation of these fields? Will the Minister responsible resist all the pressures which will come from the conservationists, among whom I count myself? I was educated at Oxford and I know the beautiful countryside there. But the times are different.
Secondly, is the search for new coalfields to be resumed? I understand that because of the extensive discoveries that have been made in the past two years this work has been stopped. In the new situation I believe that it would be criminal not to pursue the search.
I was delighted to hear my right hon. Frend the Member for Barnsley touch upon what was to be my third question. He is much more knowledgeable and eloquent than I am and, of course, he is

a former Minister. So far he is the only hon. Member to refer to the extraction of oil and gas from coal. He produced the figures. As we know, this has always been regarded as an expensive process. However, it is now coming nearer to economic reality. It seems to me that it ought now at least to be explored.
The Government frequently remind the House and the country that they are to spend more money on the coal industry than any previous Government have done. They are entitled to say that. What they are not entitled to say is that it was a free, deliberate choice. The circumstances left them no alternative but to take that action. They fool no one with that claim, and certainly they do not fool the miners.
The old adage that it is an ill wind that blows no one any good was never more true than it is in the present situation. People realise the need for a fundamental change in some of the values of our society and the position of the miner epitomises that realisation. It may be that some hon. Members heard the BBC radio broadcast on Sunday when an interviewer spoke to a number of people on the streets in Sheffield. The first man interviewed said that he would consider going down a pit if he had £100 a week take-home pay. What was even more significant was that the next three people to be interviewed said that there were no financial rewards and no circumstances which would induce them to go down a pit.
I say to the Prime Minister and to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, especially after the Chancellor's disgraceful imputation against the miners on television on Monday, that they must not make the miners the scapegoats for the present situation. If there were no dispute of any kind in the country we should still be in a critical situation because of the Government's profligate policies——

Mr. John Page: I have been listening carefully to the hon. Gentleman. To follow up what he has been saying, will he agree that if there were not a dispute in the coal industry the energy situation as a whole would be very much better than it is today?

Mr. Dormand: I thought that that was self evident. But the hon. Gentleman has not been listening to my argument.


Is he saying that the miners ought not to be taking this legal action?

Mr. John Page: Of course I am.

Mr, Dormand: In that case, I fail to see the significance of his intervention.
The hastily covered up speech of Lord Rothschild in September now takes on more meaning. I read it again yesterday, and I commend it to hon. Members, especially to Government supporters.

Mr. Atkinson: It should be made compulsory reading.

Mr. Dormand: I agree with my hon. Friend. Further I suggest that the Prime Minister uses that speech as the terms of reference for a "think tank" reappraisal of our present situation.
Lord Rothschild knew that the Government had been building up to the present position for some time. My hon. Friend the Member for Blaydon (Mr. Woof) commented that it had been building up for some time, and perhaps I might cover the bones of what he said with the figures.
The current account deficit for the 12 months to June 1973 was £548 million. For the third quarter after that date it was £334 million; in other words, an annual rate of £1,336 million. The October and November figures are well known to us all. We are now running at a deficit of £2,500 million. This is an appalling situation, but it will be compounded by other factors such as the Common Market tariff which we debated on Monday night, and the end of Commonwealth preferences.
There is no question of the miners being the cause of our present difficulties. For the sake of the Government's future relations with them, I beg right hon. Gentlemen opposite to be honest about the situation. There is no more responsible body of men in the country than the miners. Their long history shows that they are the salt of the earth. If the Government have any sense at all, which I doubt, they will act quickly to produce the improved reasonable settlement which the present critical situation demands.

7.38 p.m.

Mr. Michael Grylls: I listened carefully to the arguments advanced by the hon. Member for Easing-ton (Mr. Dormand) since he comes from

a constituency which is very much in the middle of the mining industry. A lot of his points and the knowledge that he brought to his speech were relevant. Hon. Members on my own side of the House will be well advised to take note of them. However, I know that the hon. Gentleman will forgive me if I do not take up too many of them. I have promised to keep my remarks brief.
My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer reminded us, if we needed reminding, that the present situation was one of the gravest since the end of the war. That set the framework for what has been a thoughtful but at times an acrimonious debate in party political terms, although a great many hon. Members have been genuinely trying to find real solutions to our problems in terms of the economy and of energy.
What is perhaps the most dangerous part is that whereas in other periods in our history this country has been threatened from without, at the moment we find ourselves not only threatened from without because of the Arab-Israeli war and the threat to our oil supplies but threatened from within by industrial trouble at home. This seems to be a deliberate action by a very few people, but I regret that it is action which is undermining the living standards of the vast majority.
With all the problems now facing us, in other days some might have called this sabotage. I do not say this in any provocative sense. I realise that many of the people who are taking this action genuinely believe that they have a grievance. I recognise that the miners are losing quite considerable earnings because of the overtime ban. Therefore, they must believe that they have a reasonable case.
The tragedy is the damage that is being caused to the country. In the last three years the Government have made genuine attempts to achieve expansion of the economy, higher earnings throughout industry for almost all workers and higher pensions year by year. All these aims are threatened and are of great concern to right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House. I believe that everyone in the House deeply regrets the situation, although we may argue about the cause and the solution to the problem.
I want to concentrate solely, as other hon. Members have done, on the miners' position. The country will want to know why the miners are taking this action. Is it because the current offer of 13 per cent., rising with productivity to 13½ per cent., bringing some miners £9 extra a week, is too little? There are no miners in my constituency, but I must tell the hon. Member for Easington and others representing mining constituencies that many of my constituents would be delighted if they were to receive an extra £9 a week. Very few of them are likely to receive that amount.

Mr. Dormand: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Grylls: I should like to give way to the hon. Gentleman but I am under severe duress to finish quickly as other hon. Members wish to speak. I hope he will understand.
Most fair and reasonable people would think that that was not a bad offer. Certainly that is the view of many of my constituents, and I believe that they are right. The NCB's offer is certainly generous.
Some might ask: have the miners in general suffered under this Government? If so, they have good reason perhaps to take this action. Between April 1970 and April 1973 miners' earnings went up by 52·1 per cent. Some might argue that that is not enough, but I suggest that it is a considerable increase. The amount of money that the Government have put into the mining industry for expansion is also quite considerable.
The current offer to the miners means that a face worker on a three-shift rota, with overtime, fringe benefits and the productivity deal, will be able to earn nearly £55 a week.

Mr. Leslie Huckfield: Rubbish.

Mr. Grylls: Labour Members may say that that is not enough, and perhaps I would agree with them; but we on this side of the House are entitled to look back to what the miners in similar conditions were earning in 1970. I had the information in a recent answer to a Question. The equivalent figure in June 1970 was £29 a week. It cannot be said, therefore, that the Government have ground

down the miners. Indeed, I think they have done them pretty well.
Under the current offer a totally unskilled boy of 19 who never goes underground or does night shifts can earn £30 a week. Again, that is not unreasonable.
I think everybody would probably agree that in the past miners have been underpaid. Many people would say that they are still underpaid today. But this Government have made a major contribution to ensuring that the miners have caught up and passed many other sections of industrial workers. Indeed, the figures of those coming back into the mining industry are encouraging. In 1973 there were 5,489 re-entrants.

Mr. Dormand: What is the net wastage?

Mr. Grylls: One gained the impression from some of the speeches made by hon. Gentlemen opposite that miners were leaving the pits at a tremendous rate and that the situation was disastrous. We should take encouragement from the real improvement in miners' earnings over the last three years, because that has meant many more men coming back to the mines.
Why are the miners taking this action if the picture is as I have tried to paint it? In trying to analyse the situation one should look a little more closely, if sadly, at the NUM executive. A minority of the NUM executive—I believe six members at the moment—are card-carrying members of the Communist Party.

Mr. Leslie Huckfield: So what?

Mr. Grylls: Of course, they are entitled to do that. But what are they trying to do? I believe that they are endeavouring to have a confrontation with the Government. Indeed, that is what they have said. They may be entitled to have a confrontation with the Government. But they are determined to defeat the Government, and I believe that that is against the interests of the miners as a whole.
There is no doubt that the miners have attracted a great deal of sympathy, and rightly so. They have a case for continually improved earnings. But I wish that the NUM excutive in general would get down to serious negotiation within the stage 3 proposals recently announced by the Government. Within the flexibility of


those proposals there is room to negotiate a better situation for the miners. It is a tragedy that a few people should not really be considering the interests of the miners as a whole.
I hope that the majority of miners will realise that they must get down to negotiate with the NCB and the Government within the terms of stage 3. I believe that the Government can then turn to the miners and say "We will ensure that you are more generously treated in future. When stage 4 comes along, we will see that you are looked after." That is very important.
I advise the miners to accept the offer that has been put forward before it is too late. They should go back to work and help to avoid a three-day working week in industry. I believe that my right hon. Friends will then say "We will ensure that you receive equally generous treatment in future", and miners' earnings will gradually continue to increase.

7.49 p.m.

Mr. Leslie Huckfield: I will not pursue what was said by the hon. Member for Chertsey (Mr. Grylls). However, I wonder from time to time whether all the organisations with which he must have dealings are entirely free from membership of the National Front.
When the Chancellor made his statement on Monday I could not help wondering exactly what problem he thought he was dealing with. I cannot believe that when he announced his selected cuts he thought that he was dealing with inflation or trying to keep economic growth going, if indeed we still have economic growth. Surely the Chancellor and the Financial Secretary to the Treasury realise that if we come down to a three-day working week in most factories we shall have a far more serious inflationary situation than at any time since the war and stronger measures than those he announced on Monday will be needed to deal with it.
Perhaps the Chancellor intended to deal with the balance of payments. But I cannot think of one measure that he announced on Monday that would directly affect the balance of payments. Some of the credit restrictions might indirectly and marginally improve our balance of payments situation in the

longer term, but I cannot see anything that would put right the devastating trend that we have not only in this year's, but in next year's, projections of the balance of payments.
Perhaps the Chancellor was trying to deal with the energy situation in his proposals on Monday. Again, I cannot help thinking that if he wanted to deal with the energy situation, far more relevant would have been something to exert more control over the multinational oil companies, which do not at present even feel constrained to tell the Government where they are sending their tankers. The present situation is that although Sheikh Yamani may have promised this country more oil, we cannot guarantee that it will get here because we have no control over the companies that bring it to this country.
If it was the energy situation that the Chancellor was talking about on Monday, surely the Government ought to give the new Secretary of State for Employment the opportunity to have a look at the energy situation. I cannot help concluding, as Professor Kaldor did in his letter published in The Times on Monday, that the Government's way of settling the energy situation will be about 800 times more expensive than settling the miners' claim in full. If that is the kind of way in which the Chancellor honestly believes that he will solve the country's energy problems, I fear for growth, for the balance of payments and for the country as a whole.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley (Mr. Mason) has already elaborated on the flexibility which is inherent in the proposals which have been put forward, if the Secretary of State for Employment really wanted to settle. Those of us who have had some experience in industrial relations know that in some of my right hon. Friend's proposals there is already sufficient flexibility for getting a settlement if that was really wanted by the Government.
I am bound to correct the hon. Member for Chertsey. Having talked to my miners, who have gone through their calculations in full, I find that it will not be a 13 per cent. increase nor a 16½ per cent. increase. For the majority of them it will be a 7 per cent. increase


The Prime Minister wrote to me on 13th December. He said in his letter
if the offer were accepted not only would the miners' position relative to manufacturing industry be more than restored to what it was after Wilberforce but they would also maintain their relative advantage throughout Stage 3".
Perhaps I may tell the hon. Member for Chertsey and the Prime Minister that my face workers in Warwickshire will not get, under the present award, more than about £39·60. But if they went to work in a Coventry car factory, or any other factory in Coventry, they would find themselves earning at least £10 a week and probably £15 a week more than that. If they worked nights they would probably find themselves, in certain cases, able to earn almost double what they can under the present offer by the NCB made under the Government's auspices. Yet the Prime Minister tries to tell me in a letter that this offer will more than restore the miners to their position relative to manufacturing industry.
I have told the Prime Minister that we have a very serious situation in Warwickshire. About 30 skilled men leave the Warwickshire pits every week. We were already 600 men short. Since the present dispute started and before 1974 we shall see another 200 skilled men having left Warwickshire pits. Yet the Prime Minister says
Recruitment has been remarkably steady and many ex-miners have been returning to the pits.
I know the lodge secretaries in Warwickshire fairly well. They cannot tell me of many ex-miners who have been returning to the pits. Perhaps this is the Prime Minister's and the Chancellor's genuine information. But if they believe that under this offer miners' earnings will be restored and even advanced on the average in manufacturing industry, if they believe that skilled miners are returning to the pits because of the offer, I can only say that they should go down the pits and talk to some of the men at the face. They come to a very different conclusion.
Some miners in my constituency have been almost apologising to me in the past two or three weeks. After about 25 or even 30 years in the mining industry, they feel that they cannot stay in the pits any longer because of the pay. Some of these miners have been

transferred from Scotland and from many of the constituencies represented by my hon. Friends. They came all the way to Warwickshire because they wanted to stay in the mining industry, but they feel that they must get out because they cannot tolerate any longer the pay and conditions which they have to suffer.
I make brief reference to the other dispute which has been mentioned by both sides of the House, namely the dispute between ASLEF and the British Railways Board. I say quite unashamedly that I come from a railway family. My father is an ASLEF member. Some of the things which have been said from the Government side of the House do not bear much relevance to the kind of earnings that I know my father brings into his household.
In July 1972, in November 1972 and in March of this year, the ASLEF executive told its members to call off industrial action but without getting any restruturing out of it, without any kind of offer or promise. In November last year it even had to take action just to get the pay talks on restructuring started. When a union has told its membership three times already to call off industrial action and when it has got nothing, it finds that there is a limit on the number of times that its general secretary or executive can tell the men to call off industrial action, knowing full well that nothing is available if they do call it off.
ASLEF is the union which, because of the Scamp manning agreement in 1965, has seen its membership fall from about 47,000 in 1965 to 28,000 today. I do not call that being obstructive. When one bears in mind that the official action which ASLEF took in November 1972 was the first official recommended action that had been taken since 1955, that is not a bad record in industrial relations.
Perhaps the Secretary of State for Employment thinks that the train drivers have been made a good offer. He would obviously tell the House that at present they will receive an increase on their basic wage, which is £33. That is all that an engine driver receives, very often after 40 years on the railways. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman would say that they will receive about £36·95. But what he would neglect to tell the House is that £2·45 of that will come


from consolidation and the loss of bonuses. In other words, engine drivers will once again be asked to pay for their own wage increases. In the last two general increases which have been made, apart from restructuring, engine drivers have literally paid for their own wage increases. We can no longer accept a situation in which offers are bandied about by the British Railways Board when footplate staff know full well that in the end they themselves will be paying for them. All that has come out of the present offer is a £1·50 special responsibility allowance—in other words, thirty bob! That is all that the engine drivers have been really offered by the British Railways Board.
If the Secretary of State for Employment wants a bit of flexibility, he should look at the fact that footplatemen in this country still operate on a bonus system based on 1968 rates of pay. The engine driver's wage in 1968 was £17·55 a week, or 44p an hour. Bonuses paid to engine drivers are still based on that figure. Why does not the right hon. Gentleman consider ASLEF's unique case on the unsocial hours premium? Train drivers can clock on at a different hour each day and they do not know when they will finish. Often the men do not know until the day before what time they will start. Even when they go to work they can rarely tell their wives what time they will be coming home. If the right hon. Gentleman wants to consider matters on which some kind of agreement could be reached, why does not he consider the special responsibility premium, why does he not consider the unsocial hours case which ASLEF has advanced and why does he not consider the fact that engine drivers' bonuses are still based on 1968 rates of pay?
The present situation is that ASLEF and the National Union of Railwaymen are prepared to talk under the chairmanship of Bill McCarphy. Why is it that the Electricity Council will talk to the EPEA while its dispute continues when the British Railways Board will not talk to ASLEF while the ASLEF dispute continues? If the right hon. Gentleman wants a settlement, then he must tell the British Railways Board to come off its high horse and to start talking. That is a way in which the problem can be settled.
Above all we need an appeal for national unity. The proposals put forward by the Government do not constitute to trade unionists an appeal for national unity. For Heaven's sake why do not the Government let the Secretary of State for Employment, who has a proven record in Northern Ireland, try to sort out the present situation? Why do not they let him conciliate? Why do not they let the conciliation officers use their good offices before the whole country, under a Tory Government, is ruined completely?

8.3 p.m.

Mr. W. Benyon: I accept that matters may look in Nuneaton as the hon. Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Leslie Huckfield) describes them, but I must tell the hon. Gentleman that when I visited his constituency last weekend I had a reaction different from that which he was postulating. I ask him to accept that matters look different in my constituency.
I do not want to strike a controversial note. I begin by saying something which I believe will be acceptable to both sides of the House—namely, that democracy can work only if the minority accepts that it is a minority and the majority accepts that it has a duty to take into consideration the legitimate aims and aspirations of the minority. The whole procedure of the House and our constitution rests on that concept.
In retrospect, following the 1970 General Election, it seems that the Government put too much emphasis on solving the problem of unemployment. It was not unnatural that they should do so. All the commentators of the time said that that was the overriding problem. Few of us can forget the scenes which occurred in the House when the unemployment figure rose to over 1 million. Allowing for the fact that inflation was the enemy all along, it was necessary to cure both unemployment and inflation so that expansion should take place in the economy.
That is where I part company from my right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell). I do so with rather more deference than did the hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr. Atkinson). It seems to me that my right hon. Friend's remedy has been tried


before and has failed. Also he said that we must take the Government out of the present dispute and leave its solution to the National Coal Board and the National Union of Mineworkers, yet the fact remains that the Government are the employers in fact if not in name. At some point the Government's actions are bound to impinge on the settlement of the dispute. Either we shall pay more for coal or the taxpayer will foot the bill. There is no other alternative.

Mr. John Biffen: We shall pay more for coal.

Mr. Benyon: Yes, that is one possibility. I am a supporter of growth. That was right in 1970 and thereafter and it is right now. The tragedy of the present situation is that it is an interruption—and I hope that it is only an interruption—in the progress which has been made to achieve a proper rate of growth. If we recall events since the 1970 General Election, we shall remember that there was a de-escalation of wage claims. That policy worked until the miners' strike in 1972. The figures which have been published since prove that.
When the miners' dispute of 1972 was settled by Wilberforce, the basis of the settlement was that the nature of the miners' job and its importance entitled the industry to be treated as a special case. In the event, as we all know, no other industry was prepared to consider itself as any less a special case than the mining industry. The Wilberforce terms therefore became the norm rather than the exception. We all know that thereafter the Government tried to reach a voluntary agreement. When that was not forthcoming there was a choice between deflation or statutory controls.
I, like most of my hon. Friends, fought the last General Election in opposition to a statutory wages policy. I still dislike it intensely. But when faced with the stark choice of deflation or statutory controls, I had no hesitation in supporting the Government's action. The Leader of the Opposition was right when he said yesterday that the third stage of a statutory policy is always the most difficult. It is also the most important. It is especially important to those who, like myself, see it as a prelude to the end of statutory controls.

Mr. Raphael Tuck: But stage 3 is dead.

Mr. Benyon: It is not dead. If it dies, as I shall seek to show, the alternative is grim. If stage 3 is broken—and it is already over-generous, as my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said yesterday, in view of the embargo on oil and the increased costs of importing oil—the mining industry and other nationalised industries will be the losers. The workers of those industries will be the main losers under a free-for-all. It is always the nationalised industries which fare worse than the private sector. No one knows that better than the workers in those industries.
Under stage 3 the mining industry has a chance materially to improve not just the monetary level of wages but the standard of living of its workers. If I judge public opinion aright, there is strong support for the Government. I suggest that people understand the issue far better than they did two years ago. Curiously enough, the public's resolve is strengthened and not weakened by the other difficulties which confront us. They realise that if the Government are not allowed to implement a policy which has been sanctioned by Parliament, no future Government will be able to implement their controversial Measures.
I suggest to Labour hon. Members that what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. I can assure them that the desire for political martyrdom does not rest in Socialist breasts alone. There are a number of Conservative supporters who will be watching the events of the next few weeks very carefully. It is on those events that they will react to any future Labour Government should that misfortune befall us.
The present disputes represent possibly the most important aspect of the debate. I suggest that if no settlement is reached the Government should put the matter to the test by a General Election so that the people can decide.

8.10 p.m.

Mr. Robert Hughes: Throughout the two days of debate there has been running through the speeches from the Government benches the general strand that they do not seek any confrontation with the trade unions. We have had the call for reconciliation;


we have had the great conciliator himself brought over from Northern Ireland to sort us out. One would imagine from the tone of the speeches that in industrial relations hitherto all had been sweetness and light, that the calm and serenity on the industrial field had been ruffled only recently by bloody-minded miners and bloody-minded railway drivers, and that if only they had not disturbed the calm everything would have gone according to plan.
Nothing could be further from the truth: The Government's record in industrial relations and in confrontations with the unions has been unmitigated disaster from the start. How many times have we seen Ministers go to the Dispatch Box to tell us that wage increases could not be given because we could not pay ourselves more than we could afford? We remember the piles of rotting and stinking garbage in the streets of our major cities during the Government's first confrontation, which was with the local authority manual workers. I hope we have not forgotten the dispute with the Post Office workers. For the Prime Minister to go to the Dispatch Box yesterday and have the gall to pray in aid Tom Jackson of the Post Office workers after what his Government did, after crucifying the Post Office workers, was to rub salt into the wound.
I sometimes wish that some of the Conservative Members who have spoken, especially today, and have said that there is need to amend the Industrial Relations Act, and those who said "Hear, hear" to that suggestion, as well as the hon. Member who said he supported that Act because he had reluctantly been persuaded that it was right in principle but that he was sorry there had not been a full debate, had spoken up when the Government railroaded the Bill through, curtailing discussion and imposing the guillotine, with not one word of debate in this House about whole clauses, including the clause dealing with the Industrial Relations Court. If they had spoken out more clearly then, the poison which is within our industrial society today might not have been so damaging.
We went from the Industrial Relations Act to the Housing Finance Act and to

the wage freeze, and we are now faced with cuts in spending. On every occasion sacrifices have been asked of the people, but it has been the working-class people who have borne the brunt. Inflation hits working-class people harder than anybody else, and unemployment hits working-class people first and most badly of all. It is obvious from what the Chancellor of the Exchequer said that the cuts in spending would have been made irrespective of the railway and mining disputes. In truth, we are back in the old rut of stop-go, and the old rut of deflation.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer has sought to pretend on television and in this House that he is not affecting people's living standards and that he is being magnanimous in cutting the public purse first. One would almost imagine that it was his own money he was spending. In fact, it is the working-class people who will again bear the brunt because, even if direct or indirect taxation has not been raised for the benefit of those at the lower end of the scale, we know who will suffer and who will have to make the sacrifices.
Savaging the health service makes no difference to the patient who is prepared to pay for his private care. Savaging the programme of residential homes for the elderly affects only the working-class people who are living alone and desperately need some sort of good accommodation. Savaging the education expenditure hurts not one whit those who send their children to private schools and are able to buy educational privilege. It is working-class children who will remain in the slum schools and will have outdated equipment, and if the cuts bite so deeply that the teacher supply is also affected it is working-class children who will not have the proper care and attention.
We have been told that there is to be an increase in the price of coal, gas and electricity. Who will benefit from that? Who will be hurt more than anybody else? Again, it will be the ordinary people of this country. In the regions where we have been desperately battling against unemployment and lack of social services, we will suffer most even though


we do not yet know how the cuts will be shared out.
The Government and many people in the country have called for a national concordat, for national unity. How can they expect national unity in these circumstances? Given that we are facing a three-day working week because of the energy crisis, any call for unity will need as a first step a suspension of the rent increases due under the Housing Finance Act and a suspension of the rules governing unemployment benefit so that those who are unemployed are taken care of and so that their living standards are not cut as severely as they might be cut.
The Government are now looking to the North Sea for a solution of their long-term energy problems. In many ways North Sea oil exploration and exploitation illustrates the Government's dilemma, because they think that North Sea oil will solve their balance of payments problems. It might help if the Government are able to control the revenues, if they are able to renegotiate licences in order to get more money from North Sea oil. But what the Government have no control over at the moment is where the North Sea oil will go and how it can be used to support the British energy position.
We were told when BP's Forties field was announced as a commercial prospect, that BP intended to refine half the oil at Grangemouth by increasing the capacity of its refinery there and that half would go by oil terminal from the Firth of Forth to Rotterdam. I find it very significant and sinister that work is progressing apace to build the oil terminal for exporting the oil to Rotterdam but that there is not one firm proposal to enlarge the refinery at Grangemouth. Many people in Scotland have told me that BP never intended to refine the oil in Britain and that it will all be exported. I believe that we will have absolutely no control over how these resources are used.
The Government must therefore seriously begin properly to manage the expansion of the economy. They have tried the so-called free enterprise economy of Selsdon Park and they have tried wage controls. These have all failed. They are now trying deflation. The fact that they have the accolade of the fanatic from Wolverhampton, Southwest (Mr. Powell) does not make their policien any better or any more attract

tive.The fact is that nearly all Governments of the past two decades have been interventionist, but they have been interventionist in a peripheral sense. They have intervened to stimulate demand when unemployment has been high. When we had the so-called overheating of the economy, they intervened to damp down demand. In fact, they have operated purely on the periphery of the economy. I believe that Governments, of whatever colour, will have to intervene much more directly in the management of the economy if we are to get out of the stop-go cycle that we seem to be in regardless of what happens.
I accept that one can have Government intervention and Government control of industry without having a Socialist Government, and that we could very well be on the brink of a corporate-type State heading towards outfight Fascism. But the latter will be on the cards only if we have a trade union movement which is broken. That is why it is extremely important to have a free trade union movement which is strong and which believes in the policies of Socialism. I believe that it is only by having Socialist ownership and control of the major part of our industry and economy that we shall get out of the economic cycle which we have been in. I believe that only when we can show that the Government operate in the interests of the people, and when it is a Socialist Government, shall we make progress towards national unity. I believe that that day is not so very far away, and I hope that the Prime Minister will give us an early opportunity to have an election so that we can begin to move along that road.

8.19 p.m.

Mr. Nicholas Ridley: The suggestion of the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Robert Hughes) that a Socialist Government might be a panacea for all our ills sounds a little thin and I doubt whether he will persist in that belief, because there are real problems which cannot be dealt with by any amount of Socialism or intervention. That is why I am very pleased that the Government have acted on the deficit in our national accounts, which has not so far been talked about. My right hon. Friend was


right in saying that at the moment it is impossible to forecast how demand will go. We do not know about the price of our oil supplies, about the duration of the three-day working week, about the shortfall in spending or about fiscal drag. However, to take £1,200 million out of the deficit through reduced public spending is as good a guess as can be made at this stage.
Also, we do not know, but I imagine that there will be a large extra reduction of demand due to the high price we shall have to pay for oil from the Middle East in the year ahead. If these two factors are put together they will have a considerable effect upon the Government's borrowing requirement next year which will in turn have a moderating effect on inflation in times to come. That seems to me to be not only a good conversion of thinking, but a jolly good guess in so far as it is possible to guess right at this stage.
However, I do not believe that it is possible to conclude on the balance of payments front that the action can possibly be adequate. I am not being critical here, just analytical. The balance of trade is already very seriously wrong and is unlikely to recover in a short period. Added to that we shall have the major extra cost of oil which will be across the exchanges. The adverse balance of trade will not be put right by reducing Government expenditure at home in the coming year by £1,200 million. Some massive deflation would be necessary if we were to right the balance of trade under these circumstances.
Of course, the Government have hinted that they think that the balance of trade will be matched by borrowings from the Arab world, as has been happening up to now. We have been financing our trade deficit by borrowing, and that is to continue. The Arabs have so much money and nowhere to put it that they will be only too happy to lend it to us, we are told. When I consider the hypothetical election that is to be fought on the issue of who runs the country—Labour Members say it is the multinational companies, my hon. Friends say it is the trade unions—I feel that if we borrow their money for very long it will be the sheiks who own the country. I do not think it is wise to cover excessively high standards of living by borrowing.
Of course, North Sea oil will come to our rescue. But the reason the action which the Government have taken appears right on the domestic demand scene, but appears inadequate on the balance of payments scene is, that the extra payment for Arab oil will make essential a reduction at least in the growth of our standard of living and possibly in the standard of living. Therefore we have to choose between reducing the standard of living by means of hyperinflation or by means of deflation designed to help us to export to pay for our oil. That is the basic choice which faces us. To me that is by far the most important aspect of the debate.
Why, therefore, do we not acknowledge that this is the real point? There seems to be one reason, and the hon. Member for Ashfield (Mr. Marquand) was very close to it earlier today. It is also enshrined in something called stage 3 which says that our standard of living will grow by 11 per cent. or more in the year ahead. At the same time the nation's wealth will grow by 3½ per cent. It is quite clearly no longer consistent or realistic to apply these growth rates in the light of what has now happened.
I wonder what service stage 3 now renders. The Government believe that in a way it is useful to restrain "excessive wage increases", but in a way it is very damaging because it encourages other wage increases which otherwise might not take place. Everyone will demand his 11 per cent. and no one will go with less. It is also creating the illusion that growth of both the economy and of earnings are still possible.
It would be very easy to replace stage 3. I can imagine, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, just like the ancient medieval herald, coming into the Chamber and saying, "Stage 3 is dead. Long live stage 4." Stage 4 would have greater flexibility and it would make it possible for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment, whose eloquence and good intentions impressed the House so much today, to use that power, that charm with which he achieves the compromise and conciliation for which he is so famous, to settle the miners' dispute.
It would enable us to reduce the settlements which others might receive because


it would be tougher in some places and weaker in others. It would enable those essential price rises, such as oil and petrol, which we know have to happen, and gas and electricity, which are enshrined in the Government's proposals, to take place whilst restraining other price rises which we believe to be economically less essential. In that way stage 4 would come nearer to reality, with prices a function of supply and demand—the scarcer the goods the more expensive, the greater the supply, the cheaper—and wages a reflection of the relative value to the economy of different groups of people at different times. If stage 4 or 5 or even 6 bring us to the point where we may openly acknowledge these economic forces, although the Pay Board and the Price Commission may still be trying to put the stamp of official approval upon market forces, I for one will be content. I am prepared to go along with the shadow so long as the substance is real.
However, these are but some of the difficulties of continuing with the system of stage 1, 2 and 3. Many hon. Members today have tried to suggest some other way of dealing with the matter, and it is this tendency of the debate which has worried me most. We are all saying that phase 3 is dead and some of my hon. Friends are talking about some form of commission. Labour Members were talking about some participatory arrangement under which wages could be agreed and other hon. Members have been putting forward other types of prices and incomes control.
I do not believe that we should be looking for substitutes for the defects in stage 3. We should acknowledge that the control of prices and incomes, whether by agreement, by statute, by diktat, or by the exercise of ministerial power, charm and arm-twisting, is not the most desirable way to fix these things. It is better to allow them to find their right levels in society and to accept the inevitable consequences. If that can be the transition that we accept out of stage 4 into the later stages, I am content to suggest that it should stay as long as the economic reality is allowed to be understood.

8.30 p.m.

Mr. Denzil Davies: Having listened to the debate for the last two days one thing upon which we can all agree is

that we are facing a difficult and severe national crisis. It would have been reassuring if the crisis had been due entirely to external factors. Then it would have been simple to rally around the Government in fighting for economic survival. Unfortunately, the main reason for the crisis is the financial mismanagement of the country's affairs which the Prime Minister and especially the Chancellor of the Exchequer have shown over the last few years.
We have known for a long time that the Government are unable to communicate with ordinary people, as witness their appalling record in industrial relations. What is becoming more and more clear is that the Government are not very good at managing the economy either, although we are constantly being told that that is something that a Tory Government—a Government of businessmen—happens to be good at. We all agree that the country is facing today's situation partly because of external differences, but at that Dispatch Box on Thursday the Prime Minister tried to tell us that the balance of payments position next year would have improved had it not been for the difficulties of petroleum supplies and their increased costs.
To imply that at this time of grave crisis seems irresponsible. Most people know that, quite apart from the increases in petroleum prices, our balance of payments next year would have been considerably worse than this year. On the evidence of the last two months, the balance of payments next year will be in excess of £2,000 million, ignoring the effect of increased prices of oil.
With a potential balance-of-payments deficit of £2,000 million or more, and with foreign and convertible reserves of only £2,800 million the time was bound to come when the Government would have to take action to remedy the situation. The country could not proceed to cover this balance-of-payments deficit on that basis.
The oil and industrial crises have provided the Government with a thin veil to cover their appalling financial mismanagement. The indictment against the Government is not that they embarked on a policy of growth. We all want and must have growth. What is important is that the fruits and benefits of growth


should be evenly and fairly distributed throughout society.
We have often seen other countries where there has been considerable growth but where its effects have not permeated justly throughout society. We must have growth, but the indictment against the Government is that they embarked on an import-led growth without adequate financial reserves on which to fall back should external storms blow up from time to time, as they are bound to.
No one expects the Government to foresee the vicissitudes of fortune outside their control, but I suggest that a prudent Government—and prudence is the last quality that this Government seem to possess—before embarking on such a course would have put their own financial house in order. The Government neglected to do that when they embarked on their policy of growth. To base that policy on the hope that world commodity prices might fall or stabilise, when those prices are entirely outside their control, seems to be financial profligacy of the highest order.
It has become fashionable over the years—and we heard it during the debate yesterday from the Leader of the Liberal Party—to suggest that the restraints imposed upon a country's reserves and its balance of trade should not be allowed to impede growth. Apparently all that we have to do is to free ourselves from the shackles of the exchange rates and the promised land will soon appear before our eyes.
That may be the case for some countries. That may apply to France, which grows most of its own food and is not as dependent as we are on imports. It may apply to West Germany, which has massive reserves to protect it in times of external financial difficulties. But for a country such as ours to embark upon this kind of policy without the financial reserves to support it is a rake's progress which, if it is not arrested, could lead us to the brink of bankruptcy.
One of the Government's troubles is that they believe their own propaganda. The Chancellor and his lieutenants never tire of telling us how high our reserves are. They have been telling us that for the last three years. They have become the victims of phoney financial statements and balance sheets which the Bank of

England and the Treasury have been peddling out over the years.
The truth is that our reserves are wholly inadequate to meet a situation such as that which we are facing. It is also true that we do not have any reserves in the true sense of the word. What we do have are debt obligations, of a short-term volatile nature, of more than £4,000 million, and these are covered by reserves of £2,800 million. These are debts that we have incurred to Arab and other countries by paying them cripplingly high rates of interest.
It is a measure of the depths to which the Tory Government have brought this country that when an organisation of Arab States merely suggests that they may wish to withdraw part of their sterling balances that causes panic in the City and confusion in financial circles. How humiliating it is for a great nation such as ours that the Governor of the Bank of England had to be sent hot-foot to the deserts of Arabia to persuade a Bedouin King not to foreclose upon Great Britain.
The lessons to be learned from this crisis are clear, but the Government have not learned them. Like the Bourbons, they have learned nothing and forgotten nothing. When we again embark upon a policy of growth, we must not deceive ourselves into believing that we can achieve that growth with meagre resources and without making the necessary sacrifices at home—and by those who can well afford to make them—in order to shift resources from home demand to the export market. If we want Japanese colour television sets and high-powered foreign motor cars, so be it, but we have to pay for them with our own money that we have earned from exporting our own goods and not as a result of borrowing at 15 per cent. over the short term from Middle Eastern oil sheikhs.
The other lesson to be learned is that if the Government want to solve the problems facing this country they must create a climate of social justice. They will not do that if the Chancellor comes to the Dispatch Box and announces that he is to take £1,200 million from the people who build hospitals and schools, but only £85 million from those who build offices and well-furnished luxury hotels in the West End of London.
We should start committing vast sums of public money to making ourselves self-sufficient in energy. As a start, we should pay the miner sums in excess of the limits laid down by phase 3, and we should cancel Maplin, the Channel Tunnel and Concorde. The savings, and more, should be spent on developing our own indigenous fuel resources. That is the only way in which we can exist in the modern world. We must cancel the prestige projects to which I have referred. Finally, we must not enter into any arrangement with Common Market countries whereby we lose ownership, control and the benefits of our North Sea and, hopefully, Celtic Sea oil.
Having been a Member of the House for three years, it seems to me that what the country expects from the Conservative Party is leadership that is capable of governing the country. The present leadership has failed to do that. It is incapable of governing the country, and it is the duty of the Conservative Party to change that so that the country may be provided with the right kind of leadership. Before Field-Marshal Haig takes us once more into the mud of an industrial Passchendaele, the Conservative Party should get rid of him and put someone else in his place. If the Conservative Party cannot do it, then the British people will.

8.40 p.m.

Mr. Patrick Cormack: The hon. Member for Llanelly (Mr. Denzil Davies) and I have at least one thing in common. We have both been in the House since 1970. In that time I have learnt at least one thing: that it is always possible to lay the blame on the other side of the House. If the country is in the crisis that we believe it to be in, however, those of us who support the Government have to look on this side first.
We have been in government for three and a half years. We have been responsible for running the country, and if great problems now confront us some of the blame at least must rest on this side of the House. I have been proud and pleased to support the Government in most of what they have done, but I believe that Governments create moods, and the mood we have created in the nation is not exactly conducive to the

national good. We have tried to do too much too quickly in legislation, and perhaps in economics we have done too little, too late, too often. People throughout the country are perplexed and worried, and there is a mood of disillusion. For us in this House, on both sides, not to recognise it would be to do a disservice to the democracy that we seek to serve.
The people have in their judgment tried the two main parties and found them wanting. I should like to try to get back to the mood that was prevalent in the nation in June 1970, when my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister made his first speech to the nation as Prime Minister and talked about seeking to unite and not to divide. We came in in a mood of euphoria. Looking back, I think we were possibly a trifle abrasive in some of the things we said and did. Labour Members may scoff, but it is not always easy to say these things.
As one who supported the Government and what they tried to do in the Industrial Relations Act, I am prepared now to say that it has not achieved what we hoped it would achieve. I supported it in good faith. I believe that I did not miss a single Division on it in the House. I believed that it was an attempt to bring a sense of stability and a new era of industrial peace and order out of chaos. That was what I genuinely believed I was trying to do, and that was what most of my hon. Friends felt. There was no insincerity in our motives.
But the Act has not worked out quite like that, and it is beyond dispute that it has helped to create militants out of moderates and that it has not produced what we hoped it would. To my mind, in the era of conciliation which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment, in a remarkable and moving speech today, hopes to initiate, the Act must be negotiable in many particulars. There are many aspects of it which the Opposition themselves support, but equally there are many things in it which must be negotiable.
I hope that there will be this new era. When one looks back on the industrial history of the last 20 or 30 years, one realises that the Monckton years were not so bad. The mood which prevailed in the


Ministry of Labour, as it was then, had a great deal to commend it.
I hope that my right hon. Friend will be given that flexibility here which is not a mark of weakness but is more a mark of strong and firm government. If we expect him to have the ebullience of Pickwick, the wisdom of Solomon and the virtue and sense of mission of the Archangel Gabriel all rolled into one, we expect too much. But he is a man, essentially fair-minded, who is prepared to admit mistakes and to start again. I hope that, in the negotiations he is having with the NUM and the other bodies in dispute, he will have a degree of flexibility, because it is difficult to operate from within a straitjacket.
I do not believe that there is room for a lot more money to be given to any particular group. At the same time, I hope that when my right hon. Friend meets the NUM tomorrow he will perhaps be able to discuss things like a three-year agreement, looking ahead and giving a sense of stability and continuity which is possibly much more valuable—certainly to far-sighted men—than any immediate gains.
However, it takes at least two to have a mood of conciliation. I regret some of the more partisan utterances, some of which I have made in the past and some of which perhaps others of my party have made, as well as those made by some Opposition Members this afternoon and in earlier debates, because they are not helpful and not conducive to the national interest. We have all of us got to realise that thta is of paramount concern to every Members of the House.
The Chancellor's measures announced on Monday amount to one of the toughest Budgets presented to this House in living memory, but they will not be enough if in six weeks' time the country is still on a three-day week. Whatever their shortcomings may be, it is in the interests of all of us that they should work. That is a sobering thought as we go off for the Christmas Recess. I support the Chancellor's measures in principle. A nation has to cut its public expenditure when faced with the sort of crisis that we face.
There is, however, among these cuts one which I deeply deplore and profoundly regret, and that is the cut in

the defence budget. I know that I shall not carry with me many hon. Members on either side of the House in saying that, but it seems to me that if one categorises the duties of Members of Parliament, however one tries to devise priorities, it is still true that the prime duty of every Government and every Member elected to this House is to do what they can to safeguard the integrity of the nation. There has never been a time when the pressure of world events has been more acutely felt in this country. There has never been a time when it has been more necessary for our nation to be adequately and properly defended. At a time like this, for us to refuse, for whatever reason, a small tax on things like cigarettes, beer or whisky, and yet to cut defence expenditure seems to me to be morally indefensible. I am sorry to say it because I have the highest regard for my right hon. Friend the Chancellor. I hope it is not too late to think again about that
Above all, I hope that after the few weeks when we are away from here—perhaps at a time like this it is a good thing that we should go off to our families, of whom we see too little, and to our constituencies to take stock of the situation—we shall come back to find the spirit of Christmas prevailing a little longer than normally it does, and that there will be a spirit of conciliation and a new and universal determination to settle together the problems of the nation. Do not let anybody in the House believe that a General Election conducted in a spirit of bitterness could do anything but disservice to the cause of democracy.

8.48 p.m.

Mr. Robert C. Brown: Although I would dearly love to follow some of the lines of the speech of the hon. Member for Cannock (Mr. Cormack), I am sure that he will forgive me if at this time of night I do not follow them.
Underlying the majority of the speeches by Conservative Members there has been the attitude that all the ills prevailing at the present time are the result of the activity of the wicked miners. I want to refute that. There can be no doubt at all that the present crisis is grave, but it has been around for some months now, and it is the direct result of the failure


of the policies of this discredited Government. As I sat listening to some of the speeches by Conservative Members I almost looked under this bench where I sit to see whether there was any Red there, because there has been so much of the Reds-under-the-beds case argued, both this afternoon and yesterday—to an extent that is almost unbelievable. Reds-under-the-beds scaremongering cannot explain away the fact that groups of workers who hitherto have never ever been militants in all their history have become militant in recent times.
Local government workers, including local government officers, ambulance men, gas workers, electrical power engineers, civil servants, post office workers and even schoolteachers, none of whom have been noted for their militancy, have been made militant by the Government. If the Government have achieved anything, perhaps their prime achievement has been that we now have probably the most militant Civil Service in Western Europe. That is something of which we could never previously boast.
I can speak only for those miners in my area in Northumberland. I know of no Communist in the Northumberland area occupying any senior office in the NUM. The miners in my constituency—there are thousands of them—are resolutely behind their executive committee's action. What is more important is that the miners' wives, who are bearing the brunt of the overtime ban, are resolutely behind their menfolk. That is a lesson that the Government should take to heart.
One cannot but be disappointed that if, as we are told, we are in the worst crisis since the Second World War, we have not had the crisis type of action which we could have expected, which would have had the necessary response from the people.
The Government might belatedly have conceded that it would be a gesture to the people if they considered a way to ameliorate the serious increase in food prices. But there does not seem to be even a suggestion that the Government will do anything about it. There has been a 50 per cent. increase in food prices since the last election. Set against the Prime Minister's "at a stroke" pledge to deal with food prices, this must give him a

place in history as the greatest stranger to truth since Ananias, who choked to death on the words of his own lies. Poetic justice might yet prevail.
I turn to the disastrously unfair effects of Monday's budget on regions such as the North-East, which are already suffering from an unemployment rate which is twice the national average. Why is there no selectivity in the Government's measures? Why have they not attempted to introduce some selectivity which would give a badly needed umbrella or shield to the underdeveloped regions? The Government's proposals, which go right across the board, will affect the North-East as much as they will affect the South-East or the West Midlands. The Government are like a mother with 10 children, three of whom have tummy-ache. What does she do? She gives a whacking big dose of castor oil to all 10 children.
The regional employment premium is to be phased out. That will be a disaster for the regions. In present circumstances it is reasonable to demand of the Government an assurance that they will scrap the idea of doing away with the regional employment premium and that it will instead be maintained. In view of the unfortunate effects of the present cuts on the regions the premium should be increased, if only as a temporary measure, until we rise from the slough into which the present proposals will push us. I am not pleading a special case for the North-East or for any other region. I ask simply for the same treatment as the South-East and the Midlands receive.
Only six of the 50 major employers in the North-East have their headquarters there. As surely as night follows day, in a recession, cuts are always made to the fingers, never to the body. Therefore, all the regions are at greater risk, because the fingers are Scotland, the North-East and Wales. We are bound to suffer a disproportionate share of the unemployment that must follow, as the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) pointed out yesterday.
I am concerned about what I hear from industrialists in the North-East. I hope that Ministers can reassure me. This morning I received telephone calls from Tyneside and was told by more than one person that firms had no clear indication when they will have electricity and when


they will not. One industrialist told me that when he telephones the Department of Trade and Industry he receives one reply from one official and a different reply from another official.
There is the nonsensical situation that three shipyards on the Tyne, owned by one company, are being allocated separate working days. It is nonsense that three interdependent yards on the same river should be working on Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday in one case, Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday in another, and Thursday, Friday and Saturday in another. I hope that the Government will deal with such situations.
From all that I hear, it seems that the Department of Trade and Industry does not know where it is going. It is questionable whether any direct instruction has gone out, because the Department seems to be simply muddling through.
The cut-back of investment in steel will have a devastating effect on the regions that can least stand it—Scotland and the North-East. We desperately need to get North Sea oil ashore as quickly as possible, and those regions are heavily dependent on steel to do it. A 20 per cent. cut-back in investment must directly affect the ability of the companies concerned to get North Sea oil ashore. That will have a further detrimental effect on the economies of Scotland and the North-East, which were hoping to cash in on the North Sea oil bonanza. I hope that, in the interests of the economies of those regions the Government will give the matter serious consideration.
I hope that the Chancellor will say something about the extension of REP, and an increase in it to tide us over, as well as having second thoughts on the question of investment in the steel industry, the decision on which can have nothing but a regressive effect on the economy of every region.

9.0 p.m.

Mr. Roy Jenkins: The House has just listened with considerable attention to my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, (Mr. Robert C. Brown) who speaks with great authority, as he has done this evening, on regional problems, to which, as was clear from the exchange on Monday,

no attention has been given in the Chancellor's Budget.
There have, in general, been fluctuating responses to the Chancellor's statement in the past two-and-a-half days. At first the general mood was a combination of relief, of unease, of anti-climax. It was almost exactly the wrong mood to have created in a period of national crisis. However, it was combined, as we read the next morning, with some considerable satisfaction on the Government benches that the Chancellor had once again done a skilful party political job, but I do not believe that that remains—if ever it was the case—anything like the unanimous view on the Government benches.
We have heard a number of interesting speeches today. I heard the hon. Member for Cannock (Mr. Cormack), who spoke forthrightly, and the hon. Member for Oxford (Mr. Woodhouse), both of whom, amongst other matters, spoke of the Industrial Relations Act. They would like to see it go. It is clear that there is now nothing standing between its effective repeal but the vanity of some members of the Government. It is time it went.
There are, in addition, too many Government supporters who know that the time for skilful political jobs is over, who know that the methods of the past few years have been responsible for the slither into a financial mess at home and abroad which was there before the oil crisis, before the coal crisis and, as the Chancellor made clear in a perhaps unguarded reply on Monday, would still be there if the immediate issues were fully resolved.
The pattern of leadership which the Government have chosen to present in the past couple of weeks has been fluctuating and confused. It was barely a few weeks ago that, long after the miners' overtime ban had started, the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry was still exuding the uncomprehending optimism of a professional salesman. It was only 14 days ago that the Chancellor of the Exchequer was petulantly and publicly rebuking the Director General of NEDO for daring to suggest that the 3½ per cent. growth target for next year was no longer valid. It was only on Wednesday of last week that the Home Secretary was rejecting, with all the comfortable blanket indignation of a Minister largely detached from central


economic policy-making, my charge that the Government were complacent rather than realistic.
Then on Thursday, without warning or consultation, the Prime Minister suddenly lurched into the announcement of the most serious crisis since the war, accompanied by the most drastic and damaging measures for a 40 per cent. shut-down of industry and by the news that the Chancellor was to break his clearly given pledge of 27th July—repeated by the Leader of the House on 15th November—and introduce an autumn Budget. I do not accuse the Prime Minister—[Interruption.] Yes, it is just within the time. Even phase 3 does not change the calendar! I do not accuse the Prime Minister of manufacturing an artificial crisis. I think it is a real crisis.
What is almost impossible, in view of the chronology, is to escape the view that he made a sudden tactical decision, for whatever motives, to move from a posture of reassurance to one of presenting it in the starkest possible terms. What also is impossible is to escape the conviction that were he not seeking a scapegoat, were he not blaming a circumstance which he believes can be to his political advantage, he would have sought to mitigate and postpone the consequences. The contrast between the Government's approach to petrol rationing and that to electricity allocation, even allowing for some inherent difference in the supply position, is too sharp for any other explanation.
Following this sombre and sudden plunging of the country into a half-time economy, we awaited the Chancellor's Budget. We heard the appeals for national unity—re-echoed, quite rightly, by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition last Friday. We read the Government briefing in The Times of Monday morning, foreshadowing the toughest of measures, but measures also which would endeavour to create a new climate, to right some of the major injustices of the past, to take a grip on the most oppressive of price increases. It was a moment for a fundamental reappraisal of social priorities—a moment maybe for new and considerable burdens, a forbidding task for a Chancellor of the

Exchequer, but a moment, too, out of which a new hope might have been born.
When the Chancellor came into the House on Monday afternoon, I must confess that I felt for him a considerable amount of sympathy. Of course, he has brought a lot of it on himself. He has trodden the primrose path only too blithely. He dodged the issue last April. But, God knows, we all make mistakes, and I have advanced too often upon the Government Despatch Box with a heavy task to discharge not to have some fellow feeling. But then, as the Chancellor proceeded, the sympathy died within me. It died first because of the sheer lack of logic of his proposals, a lack of logic arising not by accident but out of his determination, as so often in the past, to do everything behind a smokescreen—to make false excuses for his actions.
It died further as I heard the irrelevance and triviality of his measures.
And then there was the beginning of a smile which came over the Chancellor's face when he thought that he saw the possibility of making a party point against my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey). He was beginning to get on secure party ground. Then we had the typical and sought-for reaction afterwards. "Tory MPs believe package good for early Election" was the headline in the Financial Times on Tuesday morning. So much for the appeals for national unity. So much for the Chancellor's attempt to be a statesman.
I come now to why the Budget is trivial and wrong. Presumably it is meant to deal with the mammoth imbalance both in our external trading account and in our internal public accounts. It does practically nothing about the former and it makes a much more modest contribution to the latter than some Government supporters have suggested, including, I thought, the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, Southwest (Mr. Powell).
The public sector deficit is not and will not be eliminated. The need for very high interest rates or the resort to money printing does not disappear. There is only the prospect of a reduction from the £4,300 million public sector deficit to the hitherto unprecedented level of perhaps £3,000 million or something


below. But that will not come effectively into operation until the fourth quarter of 1974. By the same token, there will not be much—even indirect—effect upon the balance of payments until then, when it ought in any event to be improving.
It is suggested that the Western countries as a whole will be in deficit because of oil prices and that it would be a mistake if we all attempted, possibly in a self-defeating and damaging way, to correct that deficit. There is a good deal in that. But what is unique in our position is that, thanks to the Chancellor, we start with a deficit currently running at more than £2,000 million a year. Other countries start as the right hon. Gentleman started three years ago, in some cases from a large surplus, in others from a balance, in one or two from a small deficit. To take a £500 million unavoidable oil burden on top of £2,000 million or more arising quite independently and before the oil trouble had bitten is quite different from absorbing it into a strong or even a neutral position. That is why the Chancellor's special contribution has been to leave us appallingly exposed.
I find the view of the Prime Minister, reiterated yesterday, that this deficit was necessary for growth quite unconvincing. It may be that it would have been necessary to pass through a period of moderate deficit. But to have plunged into this trough, unprecedented in its depth, for this or any other country of similar size, is altogether another matter and cannot have been in accordance with common sense or expectation.
Let us be clear, furthermore, how limited and short-lived has been the Government's growth record so far. The Prime Minister talks constantly as though he had a great store of achievement behind him and that it was to be contrasted, so he implies, to our record. He has nothing of the sort. The yearly growth of the gross domestic product calculated on an average of three possible methods for the 2½ years from the 1967 devaluation to the 1970 election was 2·7 per cent. The average from the election until the last quarter for which figures are available, since when it has tailed down of its own accord, was 2·6 per cent. Like the investment boom, when we are still not back to 1969 figures, it has been a doubtful promise

for the future, not solid achievement from the record. The future has now been postponed, if not cancelled.
Almost the only one of Monday's measures which will make any yearly impact on the balance of payments are the hire-purchase controls. It does not need a Budget, mini or otherwise, to introduce them. The attempts at equality of sacrifice window dressing are derisory.
The property development tax, which, to be effective, should have dealt with unrealised gains—this is the real scandal—and, perhaps as a lesser issue, with unlet premises, has all the effectiveness of a feather duster fingered with the distaste which comes from a repugnance to pick it up at all. The total expected revenue is not enough to impose an adequate deterrent upon even a single big property company.
The surtax surcharge takes altogether only a tenth of what has been given away. In more serious circumstances its impact, allowing for the change in the value of money, is barely a quarter that of the special charge that we introduced in the 1968 Budget. To continue in present monetary circumstances, as is now widely recognised, even in the City, with the relief against tax of personal borrowings is a mixture of economic lunacy and fiscal inequity.
Then there is the central issue of the Chancellor's decision to allow the public sector in a broadly, not wholly, undifferentiated way to bear almost the whole brunt. In the first place, it is the easy way out. Generalised cuts, without their policy consequences clearly spelled out, are another example of using the smoke screen. In the second place, it is the postponed way out. Nobody feels anything for some time to time—nor, indeed, does the economy.
In the third place, it is the wrong way out. No one can look at Britain today without realising that for the majority it is not in private spending but in the public services where the weakness, the squalor and the pressures lie. It is not the shops and the restaurants which are breaking down but public transport, schools, and parts of the Health Service.
Can it be right to make those areas bear the burden, particularly without


singling out the big, prestige, money squanderers? Can it be right to talk piously, as we have done from both sides of the House, about the devastating problems of the cities and then make it overwhelmingly likely that a grinding shortage of money will be added to all the other difficulties?
The Chancellor has therefore made the wrong basic decisions, both economically and socially. He has also almost certainly left himself or his successor with more to do in an April or an earlier Budget. He has thrown away a great opportunity to make a new beginning, a real impact on the divisive forces in our society. He has shown himself incapable, even at this juncture, of appreciating what fairness means. He has left the President of the CBI, to judge from his speech of 10 days ago, standing out, compared with himself, as an apostle of radical egalitarianism. The Chancellor has become a prisoner of his own tax-hand-out past.
I read with amazement of the Chancellor's unctuous Monday night statement that when he met his fellow Western Finance Ministers he felt a sense of shame for his country. Because of what? Because of two industrial disputes leading to an overtime ban. That shows at once a remarkable personal brazenness and a national lack of proportion. Who does the right hon. Gentleman think that he was meeting then? Was he meeting the Finance Minister of France, whose country went to the verge of civil war five years ago; the Finance Minister of Italy, who has had far worse industrial troubles with which to deal; or the United States Secretary of the Treasury, who came from a city sunk in political scandal?
The sense of shame that the Chancellor should have felt is far more personal. It is a sense of shame for having taken over an economy with a £1,000 million surplus and running it to a £2,000 million deficit. It is a sense of shame for having conducted our internal financial affairs with such profligacy that our public accounts are out of balance as never before. It is a sense of shame for having presided over the greatest depreciation of the currency, both at home and abroad, in our history. It is a sense of shame for

having left us at a moment of test far weaker than most of our neighbours.
Whatever is the fate of the present Government, I believe that the Chancellor ought now to go from his present office. He sits surrounded by the wreckage of successive layers of his policy. I believe that by both temperament and outlook he is profoundly unsuited to the hard struggles which lie ahead. It is no longer a question of waiting for the old policies to come right. We need new policies to create hope out of dismay. The Chancellor had a last chance on Monday. He failed to take it. He showed himself tied to the past. He ought now to let a new man try.
Hon. Members on both sides of the House may think that a General Election will help to solve this problem. But whether or not the Prime Minister decides to have a General Election, and whatever the result may be, it will certainly not solve our national problems. The country will still need to be governed, and governed in difficult circumstances. Not only is there the present crisis, which is real in spite of the Government's manipulation of it. Not only is there the underlying weakness which the Government have largely created. There is, I believe, a greater threat to the effective working of our democratic institutions than most of us have seen in our adult lifetimes. I do not believe that it springs primarily from the machinations of subversively-minded men, although no doubt they are there and are anxious to exploit exploitable situations. It comes much more dangerously from a widespread cynicism with the processes of our political system. I believe that the Chancellor contributed to that on Monday. I believe that it poses a serious challenge to us all.
What in these circumstances does the national interest mean? It means, in the first place, that we must all live together to preserve our livelihoods and our tolerance in this crowded and precariously placed island. It does not mean that we abandon our party system, stifle our criticisms or speak to each other and the nation in muted and unconvincing voices. The electorate is entitled to a choice. That means that there is upon us all a responsibility to make that choice real and not contrived. There is upon the Government a duty to reconcile and


not to alienate. There is upon the Opposition a duty to offer constructive criticism in accordance with the way in which we could and would govern.
None of us should seek salvation through chaos. There is a duty too to recognise that we could slip into a still worse rate of inflation and a world spiral-ling downwards towards slump, unemployment and falling standards, with our selves, temporarily at least, well in the vanguard. What is required is neither an imposed solution nor an open hand at the till. The alternative to reaching a settlement with the miners is paralysis-I ask the Prime Minister to read the moving and constructive speech made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley (Mr. Mason). The task of statesmanship is to reach a settlement but to do it in a way which opens no floodgates for if they were opened, it would not only damage everyone but it would undermine the differential which the miners deserve and which the nation now needs them to have.
Few people doubt that the Prime Minister has determination or stubbornness, whichever way it is considered. The question is whether he has judgment, persuasiveness or imagination sufficient to see into the minds of others. That is an essential part of democratic leadership.
We cannot begin to find our way out of the present position without a fairer society. That is appreciated by millions across party lines. The Government have failed for three and a half years to provide such a society. They failed again on Monday. That is why we shall vote against them tonight.

9.30 p.m.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Anthony Barber): I should first like to endorse the congratulations of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry yesterday to my hon. Friend the Member for Hove (Mr. Sainsbury) on an excellent maiden speech. I should also like to express my regret that I was not able to hear personally the speech of a fellow Yorkshireman, the right hon. Member for Barnsley (Mr. Mason), not only because of his considerable knowledge of the mining industry, but also because of what was, I was told, a very moving description of his own family's experience.
Many points have been raised during this two-day debate, and I want at the outset to deal with some of those and to answer some of the questions which have been put. Then I want to come to what throughout the debate have been the major issues in speech after speech—and they were touched upon by the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Stechford (Mr. Roy Jenkins). First, is the extent to which we have restrained demand too great? Secondly, is it too small? Thirdly—and this has been the topic of many speeches, and certainly of the right hon. Member for Stechford—given the need to restrain home demand which is not in dispute, at least between the two Front Benches, are the measures which I announced the right measures for the situation which now faces the nation?
I want to devote some time to those, but, first, I hope that for one moment the House will allow me to deal with a technical matter which has been raised; that is, the new supplementary technique for controlling the growth of money and credit, because, of course, as a number of speakers have pointed out, this is of the utmost importance in the fight against inflation.
The new supplementary scheme is designed to discourage the banks and finance houses from expanding their interest-bearing liabilities above a certain specified rate. Hitherto, when banks have needed additional funds for lending, they have gone out into the money markets and bid aggressively for them and the result has been to raise interest rates sharply. The new technique which has been introduced by the Bank of England will make it very expensive for them to do this, because once their interest-bearing liabilities have risen to the specified level they will then be required to deposit a rising proportion of any additional interest-bearing funds with the Bank of England at no interest.
Because the banks and finance houses have been asked not to respond to the introduction of these new arrangements with a general rise in their lending rates, such bidding for extra funds would be unprofitable. The new scheme should therefore ease the pressure on money markets and so allow interest rates to be lower than they otherwise would be. That is the first advantage. The second advantage is that it should also operate to slow


down the growth in the broader version of money supply, because it is the expansion of the banks' interest-bearing liabilities which has been the major component in this growth over the past two years. Together with the action which the clearing banks are taking to eliminate arbitrage transactions, this new device should lead to a marked slowing down in the growth of money and credit.
Next I come to some points concerning the new levels of public expenditure which have been raised by a number of hon. Members in the course of this two-day debate. The position is that until the Government agreed the new levels. Departments and other public authorities were planning their programmes and their projects and their future orders in accordance with the policies and the programmes which were set out in the White Paper which was published on Monday, at the same time as I made my statement.
As the House knows, those programmes for 1974–75 are now superseded by the reduced ones which I announced, and which were set out programme by programme in the table which appeared in HANSARD. AS I said, there will be some reduction for the current year—and this is important—and the years beyond 1974–75 will now be affected also by the continuing process of review which will be necessary as the situation develops.
When programmes are reduced, as we have reduced them by these measures, it is for the Ministers responsible for each programme to determine the new priorities: which projects are to keep a place—and of course, to make that possible, what can with least harm be allowed to be squeezed out for the time being—which services are essential and which are less so, which purchases can be cut down and which should be maintained. Where the local authorities are concerned, my right hon. Friends have already provided guidance by circular in a number of cases, and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment met the representatives of the local authorities [Interruption.]——

Mr. Speaker: Order. The right hon. Member for Birmingham, Stechford (Mr. Roy Jenkins) was listened to quietly. Surely it is fair to do the same for the Chancellor.

Mr. Barber: A number of specific questions were put to me about the education and other programmes and those who asked the questions would probably welcome an answer. Already some of my colleagues have published parts of their decisions and, for example, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education has made it clear that the cuts will not affect the basic needs part of the programme for primary or secondary schools, nor will they affect the programme for special schools. Those programmes will go ahead as planned.
May I turn to another point raised by the Leader of the Opposition? He asked about Maplin and the Channel Tunnel. Significantly, it should be noted that the Opposition have not mentioned Concorde where, of course, expenditure in the near future will be greater than on either Maplin or the tunnel. The three situations and the considerations which are involved are quite different. Concorde is the only one of the three on which large amounts of public money have been spent over the years and are likely to be spent in the coming year. The Concorde programme is to be reviewed in conjunction with the French Government in the near future.
The Leader of the Opposition asked about the Maplin project. In contrast, of course, this is still only at the planning stage and recent developments on oil will certainly be fully taken into account in the further review which is to take place before any report is put to the House and before any major contracts are authorised. As for the tunnel, the agreements which we have recently signed with the French Government and with the companies provide only for the initial phase of the work. There will be a full appraisal of the results of this work and of all developments affecting traffic forecasts by 1975, before we accept any commitment going beyond this phase.
I was also asked about regional policy. Reductions in public expenditure do not affect our programmes of support for industrial investment in the assisted areas, whether by regional development grants or by means of selective assistance. But there is no means of differentiating in the reductions in the general run of social and environmental infrastructure programmes and other types of expenditure so as to exempt the assisted areas.


I do not believe that it could be within the power of any Government wholly to shield the assisted areas from the effects of fuel shortages, higher oil prices and supply constraints.
I was asked about infrastructure works for North Sea oil. Greater exploitation of North Sea oil has now assumed an even greater importance and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland will certainly ensure that essential public investment associated with oil supplies, such as roads, water, sewerage and so on, will not be jeopardised by reductions in public expenditure which the Government have been obliged to make. Housing for workers connected with North Sea oil industry will be exempt from the present economies.
I have given some illustrations of the decisions on priorities which have already been taken by individual Ministers within the total savings which they will be making. Within the total situation of tightening resources, when materials and equipment are likely to be in short supply as a result of lower industrial output, it would make no sense to attempt to press full steam ahead with all the nationalised industry programmes any more than with public sector investment as a whole. I fully recognise that those industries—each of them—has a major part to play, but it would have been impossible to exclude them all from the reductions that we have had to make. When resources are short as a result of the energy shortage it is a matter of concentrating on those activities of the highest importance which, so far as present investment is concerned, are the energy industries themselves.
I want now to say a word about a subject raised by the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition and in the broadcast last night by the right hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey)—the subject of local authority expenditure, for local authorities are responsible for some 30 per cent. of public expenditure. It is essential that they should play their part in securing the reductions that have been called for.
As for capital expenditure, the Government have effective control through the machinery of loan sanctions, and this will be adjusted so as to achieve the required reductions in expenditure. As

for current expenditure, we are entitled to expect co-operation of all local authorities in making the reductions that will now be required in the national interest. The level of rate support grant will be adjusted to reflect the required savings and I know that we can count on the majority of authorities to be responsible for adjusting their budgets accordingly.
There is one point about rates that I want to make absolutely clear and I hope that hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite will make it clear, as will my hon. Friends. In his speech yesterday the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition said,
… to cut rate support grant … can only mean an additional rate burden on millions of householders."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 18th December 1973; Vol. 866, c. 1185.]
I gather that the Opposition say, "Hear, hear", and that was echoed last night in the right hon. Gentleman's television broadcast when he spoke of the result being another whopping rise in rates.

Mr. Healey: Mr. Healey indicated assent.

Mr. Barber: The right hon. Gentleman nods. I must tell the House that there is not one shred of truth in those assertions, and I will explain why.
The rate support grant will be reduced only in line with the savings in expenditure and if, like the rest of the public sector, the local authorities reduce their current expenditure in accordance with the Government's request, that will not lead to one extra penny on the rates. That should be perfectly clear. If, on the other hand, any local authority deliberately sets out to flout the national interest—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—if it deliberately sets out to pursue a policy counter to the request that we have made and the rates go up in consequence, the necessary steps will no doubt be taken to remind electors where responsibility lies. I would add this: such deliberate action could well call in question the continuance of the present system of local autonomy over current expenditure which also carries with it the duty to act responsibly.

Mr. Denis Howell: Local authorities will find repugnant the threat that the Chancellor has just issued. Is not the


Chancellor aware that the biggest single factor in increasing the expenditure of local authorities next year will be local government reorganisation, reorganisation of the Health Service and reorganisation of water authorities, which the Government imposed upon them? As the Chancellor's contribution to greater efficiency, will he review local government reorganisation and totally abandon as now unnecessary the reorganisation of the Health Service and the reorganisation of regional water authorities?

Mr. Barber: The answer is "No".
The right hon. Member for Stechford was good enough to say that, at least when I rose to my feet on Monday, though apparently he changed his mind somewhat by the end, he had some sympathy and understanding of the problem facing me and the Government at that time. The point was pertinently made by Mr. Anthony Harris in the Financial Times on Monday morning, when he said:
Chancellors frequently complain that theirs is a virtually almost impossible task; but, compared with the difficulties facing … today the usual job of balancing various sectional claims against each other and balancing the popular demand to have more and more services against the popular reluctance to pay for them is kindergarten stuff.'
My right hon. Friend the Member for Taunton (Mr. du Cann) made the same point when he spoke in the debate.
The fact is that the prospects for the British economy in 1974 are dominated by the uncertainties over the supply of energy. In the immediate future the overriding uncertainties are domestic—the output of coal, the transport of coal and of oil to the power stations and the generation and distribution of electricity.
But when these domestic problems are resolved we still face the long-term difficulties over the supply of oil. In addition to uncertainties about quantities of coal and oil which will be available to us, we cannot be sure about the effects of a shortage of energy on production. Beyond a point, the shortage of energy must reduce output.
In the circumstances, it is only common prudence to plan against the probability that throughout 1974 economic activity will be held back by shortage of

fuels. However, it is very hard to say by just how much output would fall, just what effect the fall of output would have on employment and just how far expenditure by consumers and by industry on investment would be affected.
In addition to all those uncertainties, there are other conflicting considerations that have to be borne in mind. How far will the physical shortages be reflected in unemployment and our balance of payments? One must also bear in mind the prospects for world trade and for the world economy. One must balance the need for action in the interests of this country against the need not to take action which might precipitate a world recession.
Again, our chances of recovery are considerably affected, as we have seen over the past year or so, by world commodity prices. Many commodity prices have doubled in the past year or so. Will they go on rising at the same rate, or is it likely, as many are suggesting now, that the international shortage of oil will cause a break in the upward spiral? If world prices other than oil, as many are suggesting, were to fall in the coming year by as much as they have risen in the past year, many of the problems of this country would disappear.
So I come to the basic question concerning the size of the reduction in demand. There are those who argue that the measures are too severe. If that is so, they may not have fully appreciated the very great opportunities that now exist for our exports and hence the need to make room for them, because nobody would dispute that our export prices are very competitive indeed and, as regards demand for our exports, the effect of the oil shortage on other countries is that they will find that their production is held down. The really important point is that it will probably be held down more than to the extent of their demand for goods and services, and so the demand will be there to buy from us.
There are people who believe that what we have done is too much. However, I rather gather from what the right hon. Member for Stechford was saying a few moments ago that he thought the amount of demand which we were taking out of the economy was too little. I cannot agree with him. If I had judged it necessary to be even tougher, in present


circumstances there was certainly nothing to deter me, or any other Chancellor in my place, because in a curious way it might well have been even more popular, in the state of public opinion at the time, to have gone further than I have gone. But I made it clear in my statement that we could probably cope with a 10 per cent. shortfall in oil supplies without loss of production and that some rise in the price of oil would not in itself have frustrated our policy of economic expansion.
The right hon. Member for Stechford described the measures which the House is being asked to approve as trivial. It is interesting to consider the demand effects of the changes which he made in his Budget in 1968. In that Budget he put 4d on petrol, £7 10s on car licences, 2d on cigarettes, 2s 6d on whisky and 6d on wine, and he imposed an all-round increase in purchase tax. He increased corporation tax. He imposed a special charge on investment incomes. He increased selective employment tax by 50 per cent. He increased taxation so as to claw back family allowances, and he increased the betting turnover tax.
In demand terms, those measures were less than the measures I announced on Monday. But I cannot help thinking that if I had done again what the right hon. Gentleman did on that occasion, he would not now be complaining that what I had done was trivial. Indeed, the Opposition would be complaining bitterly that I had stoked up the fires of inflation, penalised the working class and introduced a Budget which was socially divisive. The basic issue of choice of measures between the two sides is clear.
Although I agree that there is room for genuine differences of opinion—the right hon. Member for Leeds, East laughs, but he has made clear what he would have done in the present circumstances. He has made it clear that he would have preferred increases in income tax. Even assuming—I agree with him on this—that, if we were to increase income tax, the burden would have had to be greatest at the highest levels, I wonder whether the ordinary working people would have preferred his remedy of increases in income tax across the board to the proposals I have made.
As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister pointed out yesterday, the

equivalent of taking out the amount of demand which is taken out by my proposals would be Is 6d. on the old standard rate. But—I must be fair to the right hon. Member for Leeds, East—he also made it clear that not the whole burden should fall on income tax. He has other proposals to increase taxation on spending. It is a matter of choice whether in present circumstances that would be appropriate.
But the right hon. Gentleman has been quite specific. He told the country on Sunday that, in addition to increases in income tax,
I believe we must have special taxes on consumer durables like television sets, washing machines, and probably an increase in the Car Tax and perhaps an increase in the excise duty on tobacco".
I do not disagree that all those are appropriate instruments for increasing the burden of taxation on ordinary working people and that this method of approach is an alternative to the very big cuts which we have made in public expenditure. I wonder however, whether the right hon. Gentleman was right when he concluded by saying:
If we tackle the problem in this way the Government will also create the sort of national unity we need to make progress".
I wonder what we would now be saying if we had adopted that solution which he put forward.
Exactly a month ago today, I put to the Leader of the Opposition a straight question which he has never answered.
I said that the nation was entitled to know whether the right hon. Gentleman was prepared to speak out against industrial action in support of a settlement outside the limits laid down by this House. The right hon. Gentleman has refused to answer. That was a month ago, and he has never given his answer. The nation was entitled to know the answer of the Leader of the Opposition. It is no use his muttering. He has never said in public what he would do and what his attitude is.
Yesterday the Leader of the Opposition was asked by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister whether the latest proposals of the Leader of the Opposition meant that the miners should now be offered more than 16½ per cent. Again the right hon. Gentleman refused


to answer. He is not prepared to say to the nation whether he is opposed to industrial action in the cause of a settlement outside the limits or whether he and his party believe that the miners should now be offered more than 16½ per cent., but the nation is entitled to know what are the views of the Opposition on this particular proposal.
The right hon. Gentleman again yesterday demanded what he called flexibility. If by flexibility he means that those who wield sufficient industrial power should be rewarded by pay increases above the limits specifically approved by this House, that is the road to anarchy. If the right hon. Gentleman is not prepared to deny that what he is advocating is a settlement

Division No. 25.]
AYES
[9.59 p.m.


Abse, Leo
Darling, Rt. Hn. George
Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Davidson, Arthur
Hattersley, Roy


Allen, Scholefield
Davies, Denzil (Lianelly)
Hatton, F.


Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)
Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis


Armstrong, Ernest
Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Heffer, Eric S.


Ashley, Jack
Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)
Hilton, W. S.


Ashton, Joe
Davis, Terry (Bromsgrove)
Hooson, Emlyn


Atkinson, Norman
Deakins, Eric
Horam, John


Austick, David
de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Delargy, Hugh
Howell, Denis (Small Heath)


Barnes, Michael
Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund
Huckfield, Leslie


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Dempsey, James
Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)


Barnett, Joel (Heywood and Royton)
Doig, Peter
Hughes, Mark (Durham)


Baxter, William
Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)


Beaney, Alan
Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Hughes, Roy (Newport)


Beith, A. J.
Driberg, Tom
Hunter, Adam


Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Duffy, A. E. P.
Irvine, Rt. Hn. Sir Arthur (Edge Hill)


Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton)
Dunn, James A.
Janner, Greville


Bidwell, Sydney
Eadie, Alex
Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas


Bishop, E. S.
Edelman, Maurice
Jeger, Mrs. Lena


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)


Boardman, H. (Leigh)
Edwards, William (Merioneth)
Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)




John, Brynmor


Booth, Albert
Ellis, Tom
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)


Boothroyd, Miss Betty
English, Michael
Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Huli, W.)


Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur
Evans, Fred
Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.)


Boyden, James (Bishop Auckland)
Ewing, Harry
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)


Bradley, Tom
Faulds, Andrew
Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)


Brown, Robert C.(N'c'tle-u-Tyne, W.)
Fernyhough, Rt. Hn. E.
Jones, Dan (Burnley)


Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Fisher, Mrs. Doris (B'ham. Ladywood)
Jones, Rt. Hn. Sir Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)


Brown, Ronald (Shoreditch & F'bury)
Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)


Buchan, Norman
Fitt, Gerard (Belfast, W.)
Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)


Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Judd, Frank


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Foot, Michael
Kaufman, Gerald


Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James
Ford, Ben
Kelley, Richard


Campbell, l. (Dunbartonshire, W.)
Forrester, John
Kerr, Russell


Cant, R. B.
Fraser, John (Norwood)
Kinnock, Nell


Carmichael, Neil
Freeson, Reginald
Lambie, David


Carter, Ray (Birmlngh'm, Norlhfield)
Freud, Clement
Lamborn, Harry


Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles)
Galpern, Sir Myer
Lamond, James


Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara
Garrett, W. E.
Latham, Arthur


Clark, David (Colne Valley)
Gilbert, Dr. John
Lawson, George


Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)
Ginsburg, David (Dewsbury)
Leadbitter, Ted


Cohen, Stanley
Golding, John
Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Coleman, Donald
Gordon Walker Rt. Hn. P. C.
Leonard, Dick


Concannon, J. D.
Gourlay, Harry
Lestor, Miss Joan


Conlan, Bernard
Grant, George (Morpeth)
Lever, Rt. Hn. Harold


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)
Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)


Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.)
Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)


Crawshaw, Richard
Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.
Lipton, Marcus


Cronin, John
Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)
Lomas, Kenneth


Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Hamling, William
Loughlin, Charles


Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard
Kannan, William (G'gow, Maryhill)
Lyon, Alexander W. (York)


Cunningham, G. (Islington, S. W.)
Hardy, Peter
Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)


Cunningham, Dr. J. A. (Whitehaven)
Harper, Joseph
 Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson 


Daiyell. Tarn
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
 McAliskey, Mrs. Bernadette

outside the stage 3 limits, the nation will draw the only conclusion—that he and his colleagues are no longer concerned with the welfare of the millions who have no industrial backing. The nation will conclude that he is prepared to pursue any line regardless of the national interest to cling to his leadership of a wholly discredited party, for which the British nation is fast losing all respect.

The duty of the Government is to govern on behalf of all the people, and we mean to do just that.

Question put, That this House do now adjourn:—

The House divided: Ayes 292, Noes 309.

McBride, Neil
Paget, R. T.
Steel, David


McCartney, Hugh
Palmer, Arthur
Stewart, Donald (Western Isles)


McElhone, Frank
Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charies
Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael (Fulham)


McGuire, Michael
Pardoe, John
Stoddart, David (Swindon)


Machin, George
Parker, John (Dagenham)
Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John


Mackenzie, Gregor
Pavitt, Laurie
Stott, Roger


Mackie, John
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred
Strang, Gavin


Mackintosh, John P.
Pendry, Tom
Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.


Maclennan, Robert
Perry, Ernest G.
Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley


McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)
Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg.
Swain, Thomas


McNamara, J. Kevin
Prescott, John
Thomas, Rt. Hn. George (Cardiff, W.)


Mahon, Simon (Bootle)
Price, William (Rugby)
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)


Mallalleu, J. P. W. (Huddersfleld, E.)
Probert, Arthur
Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy


Marks, Kenneth
Radlce, Giles
Tinn, James


Marquand, David
Reed, D. (Sedgefield)
Tomney, Frank


Marsden, F.
Rees, Meriyn (Leeds, S.)
Tope, Graham


Marshall, Dr. Edmund
Rhodes, Geoffrey
Torney, Tom


Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy
Richard, Ivor
Tuck, Raphael


Mayhew, Christopher
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Urwin, T. W.


Meacher, Michael
Roberts, Rt. Hn. Goronwy (Caernarvon)
Varley, Eric G.


Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert
Robertson, John (Paisley)
Wainwrighl, Edwin


Mendelson, John
Roderick, Caerwyn E.(Brc'n&R'dnor)
Waiden, Brian (B'm'ham, All Saints)


Mikardo, Ian
Rodgers, William (Stockton-on-Tees)
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Millan, Bruce
Roper, John
Wallace, George


Miller, Dr. M. S.
Rose, Paul B.
Watkins, David


Milne, Edward
Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)
Weitzman, David


Mitchell, R. C. (S'hampton, Itchen)
Rowlands, Ted
Wellbeloved, Jamrs


Molloy, William
Sandelson, Neville
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)
Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)
White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)


Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)
Whitehead, Phillip


Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Short, Rt. Hn. Edward (N'c'tle-u-Tyne)
Whitlock, William Wllley, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)
Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton. N. E.)



Moyle, Roland
Silkln, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwlch)
Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hltchin)


Murray, Ronald King
Sillars, James
Williams, W. T. (Warrington)


Oakes, Gordon
Silverman, Julius
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


Ogden, Eric
Skinner, Dennis
Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)


O'Halloran, Michael
Small, William
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


O'Malley, Brian Oram Bert
Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)
Woof, Robert


Orbach, Maurice
Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)



Orme, Stanley
Spearing, Nigel
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, Sutton)
Spriggs, Leslie
Mr. J. D. Dormand and Mr. James Hamilton.


Padley, Waltar
Stallard, A. W.





NOES


Adley, Robert
Carlisle, Mark
Fell, Anthony


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert
Fenner, Mrs. Peggy


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Cary, Sir Robert
Fidler, Michael


Amery, Rt. Hn. Julian
Channon, Paul
Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)


Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)
Chapman, Sydney
Fisher, Nigel (Surblton)


Aslor, John
Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher
Fletcher, Alexander (Edinburgh, N.)


Atkins, Humphrey
Chichester-Clark, R.
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles


Awdry, Daniel
Churchill, W. S.
Fookes, Miss Janet


Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)
Clark, William (Surrey, E.)
Fortescue, Tim


Balniel, Rt. Hn. Lord
Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Foster, Sir John


Barber, Rt. Kn. Anthony
Cockeram, Eric
Fowler, Norman


Batsford, Brian Bell, Ronald
Cooke, Robert Coombs, Derek
Fox, Marcus


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)
Cooper, A. E.
Fraser, Rt. Hn. Hugh (St'fford & Stone)


Benyon, W.
Cordle, John
Fry, Peter


Berry, Hn. Anthony
Cormack, Patrick
Galbraith, Hn. T. G. D.


Biffen, John
Critchley, Julian
Gardner, Edward


Biggs-Davison, John
Crouch, David
Gibson-Watt, David


Blaker, Peter
Crowder, F. P.
Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)


Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S. W.)
Davies, Rt. Hn. John (Knutsford)
Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)


Body, Richard
d'Avlgdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Goodhart, Philip Goodhew, Victor


Boscawen, Hn. Robert
d'Avigdor-Goldsmid. MaJ.-Gen. Jack
Glyn, Dr. Alan




Godber Rt. Hn. J. B.


Bossom, Sir Clive
Dean, Paul
Gorst, John


Bowden, Andrew
Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.
Gower, Raymond


Braine, Sir Bernard
Digby, Simon Wingfield
Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)


Bray, Ronald
Dixon, Piers
Gray, Hamlsh


Brewis, John
Dodds-Parker, Sir Douglas
Green, Alan


Brinton, Sir Tatton
Douglas-Korne, Rt. Hn. Sir Alec
Grieve, Percy


Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher
Drayson, G. B.
Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward
Grylls, Michael


Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Dykes, Hugh
Gurden, Harold


Bryan, Sir Paul
Eden, Rt. Hn. Sir John
Hall, Miss Joan (Kelghley)


Buchanan-Smith, Alick (Angus, N&M)
Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Hall, Sir John (Wycombe)


Buck, Antony
Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.


Bullus, Sir Eric
Elliott, R. W. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, N.)
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)


Burden, F. A.
Emery, Peter
Hannam, John (Exeter)


Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
Eyre, Reginald
Harrison, Brian (Maldon)


Campbell, Rt. ln. G.(Moray & Nairn)
Farr, John
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)







Harvle Anderson, Miss
Mather, Carol
Sandys, Rt. Hn. D.


Haselhurst, Alan
Maude, Angus
Scott, Nicholas


Hastings, Stephen
Maudling, Rt. Hn. Reginald
Scott-Hopkins, James


Havers, Sir Michael
Mawby, Ray
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh & Whitby)


Hay, John
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Shelton, William (Clapham)


Hayhoe, Barney
Meyer, Sir Anthony
Shersby, Michael


Heath, Rt. Hn. Edward
Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)
Simeons, Charles


Heseltine, Michael
Miscampbell, Norman
Sinclair, Sir George


Hicks, Robert
Mitchell, Lt.-Col. C.(Aberdeenshire, W)
Skeet, T. H. H.


Higgins, Terence L.
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Smith, Dudley (W'wlck & L'mlngton)


Hiley, Joseph
Moate, Roger
Soref, Harold


HIM, John E. B. (Norfolk, S.)
Molyneaux, James
Speed, Keith


Hill, S. James A. (Southampton, Test)
Money, Ernie
Spence, John


Holland, Philip
Monks, Mrs. Connie
Sproat, lain


Holt, Miss Mary
Monro, Hector
Stalnton, Keith


Hordern, Peter
Montgomery, Fergus
Stanbrook, Ivor


Hornby, Richard
More, Jasper
Slewart-Smith, Geoffrey (Belper)


Hornsby-Smlth, Rt. Hn. Dame Patricia
Morgan, Geralnt (Denbigh)
Stodarl, Anthony (Edinburgh, W.)


Howe, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Relgate)
Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.
Stokes, John


Howell, David (Guildford)
Morrison, Charles
Stuttaford, Dr. Tom


Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)
Mudd, David
Sulcliffe, John


Hunt, John
Neave, Alrey
Tapsell, Peter


Hutchison, Michael Clark
Nicholls, Sir Harmar
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Iremonger, T. L.
Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael
Taylor, Edward M. (G'gow. Calhcart)


Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Normanton, Tom
Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N. W.)


James, David
Nott, John
Tebbit, Norman


Jenkin, Rt. Hn. Patrick (Woodford)
Onslow, Cranley
Temple, John M.


Jessel, Toby
Sally Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret


Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grlnstead)
Osborn, John
Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)


Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)
Oppenheim, Mrs.
Thomas, Rt. Hn. Peter (Hendon, S.)


Jopling, Michael
Owen, Idrls (Stockport, N.)
Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)


Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith
Page, Rt. Kn. Graham (Crosby)
Tilney, Sir John


Kaberry, Sir Donald
Page, John (Harrow, W.)
Trafford, Dr. Anthony


Kellett-Bowman, Mrs. Elaine
Parkinson, Cecil



Kershaw, Anthony
Peel, Sir John
Trew, Peter


Kimball, Marcus
Percival, Ian
Tugendhat, Christopher


King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Peyton, Rt. Hn. John
Turton, Rt. Hn. Sir Robin


King, Tom (Bridgwater)
Pike, Miss Mervyn
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Kinsey, J. R.
Pink, R. Bonner
Vaughan, Dr. Gerard


Kirk, Peler
Pounder, Rafton
Vickers, Dame Joan


Kitson, Timothy
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch
Waddington, David


Knight, Mrs. Jill
Price, David (Eastlelgh)
Walder, David (Clitheroe)


Knox, David
Prior, Rt. Hn. J. M. L.
Walker, Rt. Hn. Peter (Worcester)


Lamont, Norman
Proudfoot, Wilfred
Walker-Smith, Rt Hn. Sir Derek


Lane, David
Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis
Wall, Patrick


Langford-Holt, Sir John
Ouennell, Miss J. M.
Walters, Dennis


Le Marchant, Spencer
Raison, Timothy
Ward, Dame Irene


Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James
Warren, Kenneth


Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey (Sut'nC'dfield)
Rawllnson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter
Weatherill, Bernard


Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone)
Redmond, Robert
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Longden, Sir Gilbert
Reed, Lauranc" (Bolton, E.)
White, Roger (Gravesend)


Loverldge, John
Rees, Peter (Dover)
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William


Luce, R. N.
Rees-Devies, W. R.
Wlggln, Jerry


McAdden, Sir Stephen
Ronton, Rt. Hn. Sir David
Wilkinson, John


MacArthur, Ian
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas
Winterton, Nicholas


McCrindle, R. A.
Rldsdale, Julian
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


McLaren, Martin
Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey
Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard


Maclean, Sir Fltzroy
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)
Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher


McMaster, Stanley
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)
Woodnutt, Mark


Macmillan. Rt. Hn. Maurice (Farnham)
Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)
Worsley, Marcus


McNalr-Wilson, Michael
Rossi, Hugh (Homsey)
Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R


McNair-Wilson, Patrick (New Forest)
Rost, Peler
Younger, Hn. Georg"


Madel, David
Royle, Anthony



Maginnls, John E.
Russell, Sir Ronald
TELLERS FOR THE NOES


Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest
St. John-Slevas. Norman
Mr. Walter Clegg and Mr. Paul Hawkins.


Marten, Neil
Sainsbury, Timothy

Question accordingly negatived.

Orders of the Day — BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Ordered,
That the Horticulture (Special Payments) Bill and the Charlwood and Horley Bill may be proceeded with at this day's Sitting, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Humphrey Atkins.]

Orders of the Day — HORTICULTURE (SPECIAL PAYMENTS) BILL

Not amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

Motion made and Question, That the Bill be now read the Third time, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 56 (Third Reading), and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

Orders of the Day — CHARLWOOD AND HORLEY (re-committed) BILL

Considered in Committee.

[Sir ROBERT GRANT-FERRIS in the Chair]

Clause 1

TRANSFER OF PARTS OF NEW PARISHES OF CHARLWOOD AND HORLEY TO SURREY.

10.15 p.m.

Mr. Gordon Oakes: I beg to move Amendment No. 1, in page 1, line 9, leave out subsection (2) and insert:
' (2) The said boundary shall start at a point on the western boundary of the new parish of Charlwood north-east of Oaklands Park, and then run in an easterly direction to Russ Hill and Westfield Place in a southerly and then an easterly and then northerly direction round the southern and eastern perimeter of Gatwick Airport until it reaches the line of the proposed link road from the M23 motorway and then easterly along that line to its junction with the eastern boundary of the new parish of Horley.'

The Chairman: With this amendment it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments:
No. 2, to leave out subsection (2) and insert:
' (2) The said boundary shall be a line drawn from Upper Prestwood Farm to Ternhill".
No. 3, in line 24, leave out
'less the excepted area of Charlwood,'.
No. 4, in page 2, line 2, leave out
together with the excepted area of Charlwood '.
No. 5, in line 6, leave out subsection (5).

Mr. Oakes: This amendment, which is not of my authorship, is designed to include the airport at Gatwick together with the parishes of Charlwood and Horley in the county of Surrey and not in the county of Sussex as was proposed in the Local Government Bill.
I notice that my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, South (Mr. Michael Cocks), whose amendment this is, is now present in the Chamber. He knows more of the details of it- However, that is my understanding of its purport.

Mr. Michael Cocks: Since the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Widnes (Mr. Oakes) does not appear on the amendment paper against this amendment, it may be necessary for me to move it formally——

The Chairman: Order. Any hon. Member can move an amendment in Committee.

Mr. Cocks: I am grateful for your guidance, Sir Robert.
I must apologise for not being present to move the amendment myself. I was under the impression that the Horticulture (Special Payments) Bill was likely to take a few minutes longer than it did.
The amendment has been a difficult one to draft. As far as I have been able to ascertain, this is the first time that the Government have introduced a hybrid Bill of this nature. In the subsection which I seek to delete we see phrases about Bills being deposited in the Private Bill Office and being available from the clerks to the various county councils.
It is difficult to deal with provisions of this kind. I understand that the hybrid procedure is necessary because the Bill affects private rights in certain respects. My hon. Friend the Member for Widnes, who so ably assisted me earlier, on Second Reading said that a Bill of this nature was most unusual and that it must go to a Select Committee to be rigorously and scrupulously examined before going to a Standing Committee in the ordinary way.
I have been placed in considerable difficulty, because when the Bill went to a Select Committee, although the Chairman at the start of the proceedings announced that nine hours had been allocated for discussion of it, the Committee never really discussed the boundary and where it should be drawn because the locus standi of the petitioners was challenged. The Committee therefore reported back to the House that the locus standi had not been established.
That was most unfortunate. It put us in difficulty as a Committee of the House because the locus standi was challenged by a Queen's Counsel, Mr. Harold Marnham, assisted by a junior, acting on behalf of the Department of the Environment.
The House was persuaded to give the Bill a Second Reading on the assurance that it would be closely scrutinised in the Select Committee. Yet, when it went to the Select Committee, the Minister, through the Department, hired counsel to put the boot into the petitioners so that they could not even be heard. The careful line by line scrutiny, to which my hon. Friend referred, did not take place. Therefore, the points that I wish to make tonight were not closely examined in Committee. That is most unfortunate.
Tonight we are setting a precedent in the consideration of a hybrid Bill of this nature. Therefore, we ought to put on record our grave dissatisfaction about the way that the matter was handled. The petitioners have come away from the Select Committee not having had an opportunity to present their case, and they are being stung for fees for appearance, presentation, and some part of the shorthandwriter's fees. Even counsel's fees will have to be paid through general taxation. This is bad. We ought, therefore, to consider the Bill in greater detail than might otherwise have been necessary.
The preparation of the amendment, which basically deals with Gatwick Airport, was very difficult because of the problem regarding maps. This is not the first time that I have taken part in proceedings where the Minister has been responsible for legislation and there has been difficulty over maps. However, after certain prodding, he has been forthcoming.
On Second Reading the Minister of State, at c. 440, said that maps on a smaller scale than the one deposited in the Private Bill Office were available in the Vote Office. This is a map from the Vote Office showing the territory with which the amendment is concerned. It is of the same scale as, but inferior to, that in the Vote Office.

Mr. John Golding: Is my hon. Friend aware that when I consulted the map in the preparation of my amendment I found it impossible to read and find village names in certain circumstances, and this could have led me into error?

Mr. Cocks: We had the same difficulty in the Committee on the Local

Government Reorganisation Bill. The Minister took the precaution of arming himself with a substantial magnifying glass. The map with which we were provided by the Government in Committee had been reduced so much that the scale was literally invisible to normal eyesight except with the assistance of a hand lens. I take my hon. Friend's very helpful point.
On my copy of the map the centre of Horley is obliterated, almost as if some explosion has taken place there. This map is of the same scale as that in the Vote Office, but it is inferior in a number of other ways. The drafting of the amendment has been made more difficult because the map contains no scale and no key. There are no co-ordinates for reference. It would have been helpful had I been able to give more accurate references in the amendment. There is no date of revision, so we do not know the current situation and whether the map is two, three or four years out of date and so on. It seems rather sloppy. I wonder whether even now all hon. Members present have maps to which they can refer if necessary.
The amendment seeks to return Gatwick Airport into Surrey. This is a matter which has been the subject of a great deal of argument and debate. The Minister has frequently conceded that there are very substantial arguments on both sides. He has had second thoughts regarding the substantially populated areas of Horley and Charlwood. In putting forward the amendment, we want to give him an opportunity once more to consider this matter and. perhaps, to range his mind over the substantial arguments to see whether, even at this stage, we ought not seriously to think about where the airport should be.
Had the Select Committee stage been allowed to proceed to arguments for and against, those would have been deployed in great detail and hon. Members would have been able to study them. We should have been saved the trouble to which we have been put tonight. Gatwick is London oriented. Most hon. Members will know that there is a very fast train service to Victoria, and that will become a more and more important feature be cause the train service gives Gatwick a very substantial advantage over Heathrow.

Mr. James Wellbeloved: I am sorry to interrupt my hon. Friend so soon, but I wonder whether he can assist me in trying to follow his argument. There is no indicator of north on the map. Will my hon. Friend tell me whether the runway at Gatwick runs west-east or north-south, so that I have a rough idea of the location?

Mr. Cocks: I am obliged to my hon. Friend. I am grateful that he has pointed out at an early stage what President Truman would refer to as obfuscation. As I understand it, the map is based on the convention that north is towards the top. So the airport is the area lying between the proposed county boundary, the boundary proposed in the Bill, and the boundary before the 1972 Act. It lies approximately mid-way between those and is an area delineated by dotted lines covering about lour squares and running approximately west-east. I say "approximately" because it is probably more north-north-east. I am risking my reputation in my specialist field in the interests of not detaining the Committee. If I have erred there I hope that I shall be excused. But that will indicate to my hon. Friend the area about which we are talking.

Mr. Golding: On a point of order, Sir Robert. In talking about detaining the Committee, would not it be desirable to reduce the lighting in the Chamber during this Sitting and possibly to make arrangements to send the staff home at an earlier hour than might otherwise be the case, if we have to listen to these long and detailed arguments of my hon. Friend?

The Chairman: I do not think that that is within the competence of the Chairman of the Committee. Other authorities deal with that matter.

Mr. Cocks: I appreciate my lion. Friend's point but, with respect to him, perhaps he would agree that these maps are so deplorable and so faint that if we were to reduce the lighting any further they would become virtually invisible.
The train service will be familiar to most hon. Members. In normal times it provides a very swift way in which to

get to the heart of London. This is the key to the amendment. There is a tidal flow of people to and from Central London and the whole of this traffic, basically, is oriented towards getting people into London. I am told by my hon. Friends who know a great deal more about the civil aviation industry than I, that 82 per cent. of British airport users come from the South-East. It is ridiculous to shift the centre of gravity towards the south coast, as would undoubtedly happen if Gatwick Airport was to stay in Sussex, because this will exacerbate the development of the South-East, which is already cause for concern. Anything which is likely to give the area additional advantages must be resisted and if the compacting takes place towards London it will do less damage to our attempts to get some sort of regional policy together.
10.30 p.m.
Regional policy is causing great concern and it would be out of order if I were to dwell on the difficulties of obtaining a decent regional policy from the Common Market. However, it is clearly recognised that too much concentration of development in the South-East is not good for the rest of Britain and is disruptive, making it even more difficult to get an even spread of development. Anything which tends to shift the centre of gravity down into the South-East is not good. Furthermore, in view of the future needs of Gatwick airport we must consider that the Surrey County Council has the expertise in airport development and management. Historically, it has seen the airport develop from an area of green fields into what is now recognised as an international airport. It would be a very great gamble to cast aside this expertise. Possibly the Minister will say that there is very close co-operation between the two county authorities, and I accept that there is a very good working arrangement with all the local authorities over this. However, someone must have eventual overall control.
One point I should like the Minister to consider seriously is that since this issue began to be debated, since the various battles that took place in the other place, there has been a development of major importance in our airport thinking which should be borne in mind


in connection with Gatwick. Serious doubts have been expressed in this House in recent months about the whole question of the development of Maplin airport. The project, it was said, would give relief to Gatwick and would mean that it was not necessary to develop Gatwick to the same degree. The project is in some dispute for various reasons and we may well be thrown back to using Gatwick and Heathrow——

The Chairman: Order. I do not want to interrupt the hon. Member unduly but he will be out of order if he develops arguments about the pros and cons of Maplin, or Gatwick and such things. The Bill is concerned with two parishes. It is not a question of the merits of Maplin, Gatwick and Heathrow

Mr Mark Hughes: On a point of order. May I humbly suggest that the Bill has a great deal to do with Gatwick because the two parishes involved concern Gatwick. One cannot comprehend the reasons and rationale in dealing with Gatwick without bringing in consideration, however briefly and tagentially, the problems of Maplin, Heathrow and other airports.

The Chairman: The hon. Member is correct in so far as he has gone, but the hon. Member for Bristol, South (Mr. Michael Cocks) was seeking to do more than that and I thought it better to haul him up before he got too involved with the details. He has made this point on that. Perhaps we may now pass to other things.

Mr. Wellbeloved: I am sorry to return to the question of the map, but I am trying to follow the amendment. I have found Oaklands Park on the bottom left-hand corner of the map, but I cannot follow that through and find Russ Hill and Westfield Place. So that I may follow my hon. Friend's argument more coherently, may I ask him to be kind enough to explain by reference to the squares where I can find Russ Hill and Westfield Place?

Mr. Cocks: I am obliged to my hon. Friend, and I shall try to assist him in a moment.
Before I do that I should like, Sir Robert, to respond to what you said about Maplin. I accept what you say, and I

hope that nobody is more zealous than I am in bowing to rulings from the Chair. The only reason I was emboldened even to put down the amendment is that the Long Title says that this is a Bill to
Transfer parts of the new parishes of Charlwood and Horley to the new county of Surrey",
and I felt that Gatwick Airport was one of the parts that might be transferred.

Mr. Golding: If my hon. Friend refers to the Explanatory Memorandum he will see that paragraph 2 refers to the transfer of areas including Gatwick Airport. I should have thought it would be difficult to discuss the Bill without discussing items referred to in the Explanatory Memorandum.

Mr. Cocks: I am obliged to my hon. Friend, but I think it is true to say that if the Explanatory Memorandum had the same status as the Short Title of the Bill the amendment would be out of order because it says that Gatwick Airport should stay where it is in the new local government set-up. It is because of the rather slack phrasing of the Long Title that we are giving the House another opportunity to think again about this decision.
I accept, Sir Robert, what you said about Maplin, and I have no intention of rehearsing the arguments about it. The only points that I want the Government to think about are, first, that there is a great deal of doubt whether, in the end, Maplin will be what we thought a few months ago it would be, and, secondly, that as they are imposing severe cuts on public expenditure the substantial amount of money allocated to Maplin may not be forthcoming and therefore Gatwick Airport may well be subject to a great deal more expansion than has been envisaged. I leave the matter there, Sir Robert, and I hope that I have not incurred your displeasure.
The presence of Gatwick Airport as such, a substantial area of hard-surfaced, flat land, increases the flood problem in the Mole Valley. During the proceedings on the Local Government Bill there were frequent references to the flooding that occurred there and the necessity for controlling the head waters of the River Mole. I feel that that is an additional bonus for those who argue that the amendment should be accepted.
The other point that I wish to raise relates to the poll upon which the Bill


is based. I am most interested in what the poll asked. I wonder whether the alternatives were clearly put to the people when they gave what the Minister described so fulsomely as an overwhelming expression of desire. That is the sort of point that should have been scrutinised very closely in the Select Committee. I apologise for wearying the Committee with this point, but it is the result of the Government hiring Queen's Counsel and junior counsel to put the boot into what should have been a proper oarliamentary scrutiny.

The Minister for Local Government and Development (Mr. Graham Page): I must protest at the hon. Gentleman referring to learned counsel putting the boot into the petitioners. The conduct of the proceedings was under the Chairman of the Select Committee and the points put forward were perfectly within the competence of that committee. It is unfair that professional men who appear in these committees should be accused of putting the boot into petitioners.

Mr. Cocks: If I have offended the Minister, I certainly withdraw the phrase against these two men, who were doing the job they had been paid to do. Possibly had the petitioners possessed more resources, those gentlemen might well have been appearing on their behalf instead of on behalf of the Department. But the fact remains that the House was assured that the matter was going to a Select Committee, and then the Department employed people to do their best to discredit the locus standi of the petitioners who appeared.
I have read the report of the proceedings in the Select Committee and I agree that everything was done with perfect professional propriety. When I said that they put the boot in, I was using the phrase metaphorically to describe the behaviour of the Government to make sure that that stage was truncated.

Mr. Wellbeloved: My hon. Friend is aware that there are a great number of barristers and solicitors on both sides of the Committee, and it is unfair to imply that they would in any way be associated with boots. Would my hon. Friend not prefer to use the term patent leather shoes?

Mr. Ernest G. Perry: The Lord Chancellor certainly wears boots.

Mr. Cocks: I am obliged to my hon. Friend the hon. Member for Erith and Crayford (Mr. Wellbeloved), and I take his point. I think it is the sort of point that might be made when the amendment of legislation affecting solicitors comes up for Second Reading. At any rate, I accept the Minister's point and I shall turn briefly to the question of the poll, which is the basis of the Bill.
In the Select Committee proceedings the point was made by counsel that the issue on the question of a poll related to whether Horley should stay in Surrey. My information is that it was not made clear to people that the alternative involved the area being without the airport. In the proceedings on the Local Government Bill on 6th July 1972, the hon. Member for Dorking (Sir G. Sinclair) said this in regard to the offer to two parish councils:
At a widely advertised parish meeting in Horley, it was decided by 600 votes to 10 that the people wished the whole of the area, including the airport, to stay in Surrey."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 6th July 1972; Vol. 840, c. 1112.]
I regard the poll as suspect, and the real wishes of the local inhabitants are that they should have the airport as well. Therefore, the amendment gives the Government the chance to put this matter right. This point should have been examined in the Select Committee.
If we look at the line I have drawn on the map, we see that it follows the county boundary proposed in the Bill, until we get to Westfield Place which is in the square below Charlwood. Then we move in a southerly direction to encompass the perimeter of Gatwick Airport. It leaves only a comparatively small part of these parishes unattached. This is the subject of a later amendment. I submit that Amendment No. 1 is reasonable since it gives the Government a chance to think again.

Mr. Wellbeloved: My hon. Friend says the new boundary goes along Westfield Place and comes down in a southerly direction. Does it go down as far as the line shown on the plan, that is to say the county boundary before the passing of the 1972 Act, or does it run to the


north of that line? Does it go close to the boundary of Gatwick Airport, and where does it swing down when it reaches the end of the perimeter of Gatwick Airport?

Mr. Cocks: My hon. Friend's question shows our difficulty in trying to deal in a Committee of the whole House with matters which are properly Select Committee points. The truthful answer is that I do not know, because my amendment deals with travelling around the southern and eastern perimeter of Gatwick Airport. It is not clear from the map, which I believe is an extract from the one-inch map, or is based on it, where the perimeter runs. Therefore, we are in difficulty.
I cannot hope to be more explicit, because of the difficulty the Government have put us in by the procedure they have forced on us. I should be pleased to give my hon. Friend more substantial guidance, but it is very difficult.
The amendment is an attempt to give the Government a chance to think again. It does not transgress the short title of the Bill. It is possibly open to drafting improvements, but on the information the Government have given us it is the best I can do.
It is not the only example of woolly drafting. If the amendment is not accepted by the Committee, which I find a little unlikely, I hope to draw the attention of the Minister in the debate on the Question, "That the clause stand part of the Bill", to a further inaccuracy in the Bill which has caused great disquiet to people living close to the boundary.

Mr. Leslie Huckfield: I apologise for not being present for the whole of my hon. Friend's speech, because I realise that he has been raising matters of great importance. Is it coincidental that the county boundaries proposed in the Bill substantially follow the noise footprint of aeroplanes taking off from the main runway? If it is to be the case that in future we are to alter county boundaries to fit in with aeroplane noise footprints, it is a far-reaching principle, which I know would have direct relevance and application to the constituency of the hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mr. Allason) and constituencies

throughout the country. We are dealing with a major matter.

Mr. Cocks: I am obliged to my hon. Friend. It is clear that other speakers wish to bring forward different facets of the argument, so I will close by saying that the amendment is reasonable. It gives the Government a chance to think again. It may well be that if this possibility were put to the inhabitants they would embrace it with all the enthusiasm which the Minister described for their exploratory soundings of opinion on the transfer of the mainly populated areas of the parish.
I am obliged for your indulgence, Sir Robert. I hope that the Committee will feel able to support the amendment.

Mr. Wellbeloved: On a point of order, Sir Robert. Can you help us in respect of the map that has been put in the Vote Office, I assume by the Government, who are promoting the Bill? It is impossible to follow the words in the Bill in relation to the map and the words of the amendment. The map is merely a photostat copy, which is indistinct in places, with chunks omitted. We must seek your guidance, because the House will be brought into disrepute if the Committee is asked to consider boundaries set out in a Bill and an amendment which cannot be traced upon the map put in the Vote Office by the Government.

Mr. Leslie Huckfield: Further to that point of order. To me, going back to my second form geography days, the map looks like a photocopy of the Ordnance Survey 2½ in.-to-the-mile. Would not it be possible for the Committee, even at this late stage in its deliberations, to be provided with a proper copy of the relevant part of the map? I am sure you will realise that on a proper copy of the 2½ in. ordnance survey map the roads, trees, water and so on are shown in different colours, whereas on this copy everything is shown in black.

The Chairman: I am on firm ground for which there are many precedents in saying that the Chair has no authority to demand the publication of proper maps or papers. It is entirely a matter for the promoters of the Bill or for the Government, whichever is appropriate.

Mr. Wellbeloved: On a point of order. Sir Robert. I take it from your ruling that it is within the competence of the Minister to give such orders as he deems necessary to those at his command to produce the necessary documents if he feels they are relevant. I am sure he will realise that we are likely to conclude our discussion of the amendmenet earlier if we can more easily follow the arguments instead of being bewildered by the inadequate facilities which the Government have made available.

Mr. Graham Page: Further to that point of order, Sir Robert. The deposited maps have been prepared to comply with the Standing Orders affecting hybrid Bills, and have been accepted by the House Officials as complying with those Standing Orders.

Mr. Ted Leadbitter: I compliment those who have been responsible for the selection of amendments in showing by their generous selection their assessment of the importance of the Bill. In a nutshell the amendment seeks to put Gatwick Airport back to Surrey where it belongs. It is as simple as that. I call in evidence what the Minister said during the debate on Second Reading:
What makes this case of Charlwood and Horley unique is the fact that a meaningful parish poll could not be held until it was quite clear that Gatwick was going to Sussex, so that the residents were directly faced with the dilemma that they could either stay with Surrey or stay with the airport but not both.
The Minister cannot honestly say that the people were confused about whether the parishes were in Surrey or out of Surrey, with or without the airport. From the beginning the isssue was clear. The residents of Charlwood and Horley were thinking in terms of themselves and the airport as a natural geographical entity. There was no confusion.
Secondly, I asked the right hon. Gentleman to explain the conclusion of his remarks on that occasion:
The boundary proposed now represents the agreed view of the local authorities in regard to a line, which gives effect to the wishes of local opinion and provides a satisfactory boundary for the provision of local government services."—[Official Report, 13th November 1973; Vol. 864, c. 441.]
In one statement, he speaks of confusion of public opinion, then calls in evidence in support of his proposal that local

authorities have expressed public opinion and that he accepts the line to be drawn. That is not even logical and it is certainly contradictory.
Any hon. Member watching the transitional period of local government reorganisation is increasingly perturbed by the administrative difficulties which the right hon. Gentleman has in getting answers in the Department to problems which the Department has created. Lord Garnsworthy said in another place on 11th September:
The proposals under the Bill for the alteration of the Surrey boundary along the frontier with West Sussex mean an intrusion into the county of Surrey which shows up on the map like a sore thumb.
We have pointed out that we are unable properly to understand the maps, although this House is supposed to deal with legislation in a proper and responsible manner. Lord Garnsworthy has considerable experience of the county and has a high reputation and integrity which are not in question. He describes the intrusion into Surrey as a "sore thumb" He went on:
It involves the transfer of the greater part of the parishes of Horley and Charlwood including Gatwick Airport from Surrey to West Sussex. This is a proposal which some 87 per cent. of the 18,000 residents involved have rejected.
The Minister has called in aid the second poll. It is not for me to impute that it was carried out in a manner biased in any way in favour of the Minister's preconceived opinion. But he should equally reciprocate and say that another poll, carried out by someone else, would not be biased in any particular direction either. But there is a consistency in both polls, showing that the residents want to stay in Surrey.
11 p.m.
We have left the considerable rateable value of the airport, which does not have residents but which has workers who come in, admittedly, from West Sussex and from West Surrey. But every test when looking at the airport has shown that its transfer to West Sussex materially affects the rateable value of Surrey, whereas it does not necessarily increase to the extent that it needs the rateable value of West Sussex. That may seem illogical, but Surrey suffers a lower total rateable value, and it needs the rateable value of its airport.
I again pray in aid the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Garnsworthy. He said:
So far as the people of Horley and Charlwood are concerned, their schools are organised on the principles of Surrey's development. Their other services have been maintained at the high levels which obtain in the county of Surrey; and while it may seem somewhat mundane to mention sewerage, nevertheless it is a most essential service, and the effluent from Horley enters the River Mole, which flows through Surrey right out into the Thames. In addition I should like to mention that the whole of the Gatwick area drains into the River Mole, including its surface water drainage."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, House of Lords, 11th September 1972; Vol. 335, cc. 137–8.]
What is more, the communication systems between Gatwick and Heathrow go through Surrey.
I put it to the Minister that all the evidence, all the experience and all the wishes of the people are in support of the amendment, and the Minister knows that when he calls upon the wishes of the people it cannot be accepted in a Committee of this House that the only proviso shall be that it is amenable to him when it suits Government policy and not when it suits the wishes of the majority of the general public in the area.
The Minister knows that he has no sound arguments for putting Gatwick into West Sussex. Before the Local Government Bill went into Standing Committee, at the time of its Second Reading, and certainly at no time before can the Minister call upon any authority in West Sussex which said that it wanted to take the airport out of Surrey. At no time since Second Reading has mere been any overt militant activity on the part of West Sussex to compare with the activity of Surrey during the Committee stage of the Local Government Bill to hold on to its own airport.
I put a simple question to the Minister. I have called in aid in support of the amendment only a part of the evidence. I want the Minister in turn to have the opportunity to argue out reasons against excluding the airport from the proposals. That is the function of this place. It is not a matter of taking up rigid postures.
Influential pressures are bound to have been brought to bear upon the

Minister to keep Charlwood and Horley in Surrey. Quite rightly, he responded on the basis that half a loaf is better than none at all.
Having conceded the point about Charlwood and Horley and satisfied the residents to that degree, is the Minister in a position to say, "I can give you some economic, social, political, geographical or industrial factors to support keeping Gatwick in West Sussex."? As I said earlier, the function of a Standing Committee is not to be biased, but to respond to a good argument. I should be prepared to give way if the Minister could convince me in that way. But I suggest that he cannot do that. Certainly he did not do so on Second Reading and he failed to do so during the Committee stage of the Local Government Reorganisation Bill, because he rejected an 87 per cent. poll on that occasion. But if he can do so now he will certainly ease the concern felt by my hon. Friends. If not, I suggest that the amendment should go to a Division.

Mr. Golding: I am not sure whether I am in order in moving my amendment, in Clause 1, page 1, line 9——

The Chairman: Order. The hon. Gentleman may speak to his amendment, but he may not move it.

Mr. Golding: I should like to speak to my amendment, in page 1, line 9, leave out subsection (2) and insert—
' (2) The said boundary shall be a line drawn from Upper Prestwood Farm to Tern-hill '.

Mr. Leslie Huckfield: Will my hon. Friend give way? I apologise for interrupting him at so early a stage. The Ordnance Survey one-inch map refers to Fernhill, not Ternhill. I can only suppose that my hon. Friend is referring to Fernhill.

Mr. Golding: I may have to make a manuscript amendment. That arose from the unfortunate fact that the boundary, marked on the official map, went through this spot and obliterated the first letter of the name. Obviously it should be Fernhill. It would be helpful if Upper Prestwood Farm could be checked on the superior non-official map so that, if I were wrong about that, it could be corrected.

Mr. Leslie Huckfield: May I intrude again? Having checked the official Ordnance Survey map, sheet 182, I am pleased to tell my hon. Friend that there is not only an Upper Prestwood Farm, but a Lower Prestwood Farm.

Mr. Golding: I am pleased about that. I should no doubt be straying out of order if I told the Committee that, by making a spelling mistake at a committee of inquiry, I cost the electors of Twickenham a considerable sum of money. But that is another story.

Mr. Wellbeloved: Before my hon. Friend leaves the explanation of the delineation of his amendment, perhaps I may be allowed to raise one matter. My hon. Friend the Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Leslie Huckfield) has the advantage of me. I have not yet found Upper Prestwood Farm or Ternhill or Fernhill, whichever it may be. Will he explain, on the map provided by the Vote Office, just where his boundary would run?

Mr. Golding: I shall be coming to that matter shortly. I never knew where Fernhill or Upper Prestwood Farm were. I took a piece of paper and placed it on the map along the main runway of Gatwick Airport. Coming to the boundaries indicated on the official map, I discovered that the piece of paper rested on Ternhill and Upper Prestwood Farm. If hon. Members were to do that they would find that Ternhill is by the Gables, south of Royal Oak Farm, just east of Ternhill Farm. Upper Prestwood Farm is by Littlepark Farm. Great Burlandy is to the south-east. It is a very difficult map to read. I shall return to the arguments on the boundary shortly.
I became interested in this matter when I read the special report which was ordered to be printed on 4th December. I read the evidence of Mr. Best. When he appeared before the Select Committee he very modestly stated:
May I first declare my strictly amateur status. I represent four concerned citizens. We have no legal help and I would crave your indulgence for not knowing all of the rules. I have been wondering on my way here which biblical parallel might be most appropriate to me. Would it be David versus Goliath? My opponent here is uncomfortably near. Or would it be Daniel in the lion's den? However, as I am secretary of the local Labour Party and as there are Labour Party representatives on the select committee I cannot view the committee as lions.

Mr. Best was right not to view the Select Committee as lions, but he was wrong to overlook the counsel employed by the Government to do their level best to destroy the evidence presented by Mr. Best and the four concerned citizens.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, South (Mr. Michael Cocks) said that the Government had put the boot in. He was referring to the employment of counsel, of very experienced individuals, to try—which they did successfully—to prevent the point of view of the common man being put to the Select Committee. It must be conceded that they were successful. That is the reason for the debate.
In the Minutes of Speeches Delivered Before the Select Committee on the Charlwood and Horley Bill, one of the submissions, on page 12, is:
To allow private individuals to offer any reasons against the principle of the bill would be inconsistent with what Sir Erskine May describes as the ' general principle of legislation ' that ' a public bill, being of national interest, should be debated in Parliament upon the grounds of public expediency; and that the arguments on either side should be restricted to Members of the House.' It would, in fact, be allowing persons who were not Members to participate in the performance of duties which Members alone are appointed to perform and for the performance of which they alone are responsible.
11.15 p.m.
Mr. Best had earlier stated as one of his grounds of objection that the rateable value of Gatwick Airport was £½ million, that it was to go into West Sussex, that in five months' time he was to become an old-age pensioner, and that the loss of Gatwick Airport to the county in which he lived would raise the rates considerably.
It having been ruled that the Select Committee could not entertain the representations of Mr. Best and the common men whom he represented, we Members of the House of Commons will have to put his point of view for him. I was very pleased tonight to hear the way in which my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, South put what I believe to be the extreme point of view—that of Mr. Best. I say "extreme" deliberately, because when I came to read the evidence and to listen to the points of principle raised by my hon. Friends I decided that there were two sides to this question: both West Sussex—I do not know


whether that is Sussex by the sea—and Surrey have possibly a claim upon this important airport.
Therefore, I decided that only one solution was possible. I drew my inspiration from Kings 3, 16, because I thought that in poetical terms at least both West Sussex and Surrey are harlots. I do not think that hon. Members on this side would deny that. So I was faced with these two harlots arguing about the ownership of one thing.
I turned to Kings 3, 16 and I read:
Then came there two women, that were harlots, unto the king "—
that was King Solomon—
and stood before him.
17. And the one woman said, O my lord, I and this woman dwell in one house; and I was delivered of a child with her in the house.
18. And it came to pass the third day after that I was delivered, that this woman was delivered also: and we were together; there was no stranger with us in the house, save we two in the house.
19. And this woman's child died in the night; because she overlaid it.
20. And she arose at midnight, and took my son from beside me, while thine handmaid slept, and laid it in her bosom, and laid her dead child in my bosom.
21. And when I rose in the morning to give my child suck, behold, it was dead: but when I had considered it in the morning, behold, it was not my son, which I did bear.
22. And the other woman said, Nay; but the living is my son ".

The Second Deputy Chairman (Mr. Oscar Murton): Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman in his flow of oratory from the Old Testament, but I think that he is becoming slightly irrelevant. I ask him to come back to the point quickly or go through his argument more succinctly so that the Chair may understand.

Mr. Golding: I think, Mr. Chairman, that perhaps you are in either the fortunate or the unfortunate circumstance of having only recently entered this debate. What I was trying to say was that faced with this problem where there are these two warring factions wanting the possession of one thing, I turned to the Old Testament for inspiration to find a possible solution to the problem. I am sorry to have to continue with the explanation, because I had almost finished. I came

across this story of the two women who both claimed ownership of a child—you may have heard the story, Mr. Deputy Speaker—and who went before King Solomon for judgment. The point I was getting to was that the king said—see verses 24 and 25—
Bring me a sword. And they brought a sword before the king.
And the king said, Divide the living child in two, and give half to the one, and half to the other.
I did not have a sword, a spade, or a fence. But I had a pencil. I also had a piece of paper. What I decided to do "was to propose an amendment—that one half of the airport should go to Charlwood and Horley and the other to Salfords. Earlier I was explaining how I did that.

Mr. Graham Page: That does not necessarily follow the hon. Gentleman's quotation from the Book of Kings: as he knows, the judgment of Solomon was never carried out.

The Second Deputy Chairman: As we are talking about King Solomon, may I say that I am neither "Mr. Chairman" nor "Mr. Deputy Speaker". While in this seat I am Mr. Murton.

Mr. Mark Hughes: On a point of order, Mr. Murton. We have been considering this stage of the Bill for slightly more than 60 minutes. It seems perfectly clear that further progress is likely to be somewhat protracted. Li view of the somewhat tenuous state of public transport and the need to conserve electricity and so on. through you may I ask the Minister in charge of the Bill to consider whether the time has come to postpone further consideration? It is clear that there are still weighty matters to discuss on other amendments. In the interests of the staff of the House of Commons and hon. Members, would the Minister consider how to proceed?

The Second Deputy Chairman: That is not a matter for the Chair.

Mr. Leadbitter: Through you, Mr. Murton, may I ask the Minister——

The Second Deputy Chairman: Is the hon. Member addressing me on a point of order?

Mr. Leadbitter: I was addressing the Minister through the Chair.

The Second Deputy Chairman: Then it was an objection rather than a point of order.

Mr. Leadbitter: Is it possible to put to the Minister a consideration of some importance to see whether he will respond?

The Second Deputy Chairman: That is not a matter of order.

Mr. Golding: I am sorry about the manner in which I addressed you, Mr. Murton. The Bill reminds me of the old Accles and Pollok advertisement when the names were confused. There is a good case for the division of the airport between the various authorities. This stems partly from what was said in evidence to the Select Committee:
It is contended that the wording of the Poll did not fully and properly state the choice which was that Horley (minus the North Ward known as Salfords) be either included with Gatwick Airport in the new County of West Sussex, or that it be included, without Gatwick Airport, in the new County of Surrey. It is furthermore contended that if the choice had been properly stated there would have been a positive opportunity to show a preference for West Sussex and that it is reasonable to assume that this would have resulted in a vote more evenly distributed between Yes and No.
That may well be an argument in support of my hon. Friend's contention. At this time, however, when there is a continual demand for conciliation, compromise and unity, I should have thought that in this circumstance those who would deny the rate relief in Horley and Charlwood would not press their case to the full and that they would be satisfied with a division of the airport. It is important, however, that they get something, because they feel very sore about it.
The one point which has to be made is that the giving of the airport in its entirety to West Sussex is obviously undesirable from an economic point of view. It would be straying too far into the past to go into detail, but when considering the airport and the situation one sees that it would have been better for the Redcliffe-Maud solution to have been adopted by the Government. That commission advised that, because of their close association, Horley, Gatwick and Crawley New Town should be taken together for the purposes of planning.
The OFFICIAL REPORT of 6th July 1972 records a speech by the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, addressing

the House on behalf of the Government, in which he referred to a letter received from Mr. Epson, Chairman of the Horley and Charlwood Protest Committee and also of the Charlwood Parish Council. The hon. Gentleman said that
the parishes of Horley and Charlwood are so dominated by and inextricably mixed with the airport that it would be a planning disaster to separate the two."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 6th July 1972; Vol. 840, c. 1137.]
The letter went on to say that
By a large majority Horley Parish Council voted in favour of remaining in the same county as Gatwick Airport. Horley Chamber of Commerce has also voted in favour of remaining with the airport. The majority of Horley electors, despite a circular letter sent by the Chairman of Horley Parish Council urging them to vote either Yes or No at the Poll, did not vote in favour of being in Surrey.
It says that
Horley is as much affected by Gatwick Airport as Crawley. It is therefore logical that it should be in the same area of local government. It is only right that the inhabitants of these areas should have an equal say in the affairs of the Airport and an equal share of the rates collected from the Airport. Horley town centre is less than two miles from the Airport buildings, which means that there are close business connections. The town necessarily houses many Gatwick employees and will, in future, house still more.
The further one reads, the further one is led to believe that the people of Charlwood and Horley have been deceived. It is important that we put that point of view tonight, because the implications of the decisions will become more and more serious.
We cannot discuss Maplin, but we can postulate what will happen at Gatwick if Maplin is not created. It is said—I quote from the British Airports Authority annual report for 1972–73—that
Passengers could increase five times from today's 5m to around 25m in the mid-80s and thence perhaps to 35m by the end of the decade. Air transport movements could double from today's 70,000 to about 140,000 and perhaps thence to around 160,000 at which point the capacity of the Gatwick runway would probably be exhausted. Further land and extra terminal facilities would be required.
11.30 p.m.
It is obvious that Mr. Best's pension would not be drained quite so much later on were he able to get the rate advantage which might flow from this extended Gatwick.
I close only out of respect for the servants of the House—not because I want to let the Government off the hook.

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Mark Carlisle): Quite right.

Mr. Golding: The Minister who says, "Quite right" should be aware that this is Government business. If the Government had conducted their business properly and had not stuck a knife into the common man—[Interruption.] The Minister does well to apologise for intervening in another Minister's brief, because he knows what a terrible thing has been done.
It seems to me to be wrong that Mr. Best and his fellow members of the Labour Party in Surrey should suffer the noise from Gatwick Airport, the inconvenience of Gatwick Airport, the road and rail traffic from London to Gatwick Airport, and unfair that Mr. Best will not be able to benefit financially in terms of his rates at the same time that he suffers inconvenience.
I conclude by saying that I am sorry that I have had to speak in this debate. I have had to speak because Mr. Best and the common man is prevented from putting his point of view to the House of Commons during the initial stages of the Bill.

Mr. Leslie Huckfield: I feel that I must echo some of the sentiments expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Golding) about the late and inconvenient hour at which the House is being presented with the Bill. I am sure that the Minister for Local Government and Development realises that this is not any old private Bill with a little Government backing; it is an extremely contentious measure. I should have thought it was ill advised of the Government to put such a contentious measure on the Floor of the House at this time of night, knowing full well the interest that there is in a contentious measure like this among hon. Members on both sides.
I say that particularly because, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, the Opposition have tried to keep to some kind of undertaking during the present emergency We have done our best to let the staff of the House get home while public

transport is still running. Those of us who are in the habit of catching the No. 159, the No. 13, the No. 113, or some other bus which goes in a northerly direction, know that we have missed our last bus already. Those who are in the habit of travelling by the Circle, District, Northern or Bakerloo Line know that very shortly our last train will be going. That is why we feel that it is very ill advised of the Government to bring the Bill before the House at this very late stage, in these days of crisis—and it is the Government who say that these are days of crisis; it is not the Opposition. It does not show much respect for the kind of people that the Goverment purport to represent in bringing forward the Bill.
I hope that when the right hon. Gentleman speaks he will bear in mind that the Opposition feel, as my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme has said, that we have to do our bit to protect the interests of the common man. The Minister may think that the Government can ride roughshod over the interests of the common man by putting forward this contentious proposal at this time, hoping to get it through quickly under the guise of the emergency situation, but we feel that it is a poor and mean way to run the country. I certainly hope that the interests which we represent in the areas which are under discussion have taken note of the way in which the Bill has been brought before the House at such a time.
Having studied some of the implications of the Bill I must conclude that not only is the Bill difficult to understand but the map is even more difficult to understand. I cannot claim to know the highways and byways around the airport very well, but I am familiar with the airport itself, yet on the map the airport is only just recognisable. The 1-in. Ordnance Survey map provided by my hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Crayford (Mr. Wellbeloved) shows the airport a little more clearly simply because it shows green trees and we know that that could not be the airport. I presume that the other map is a 2½-in. map.

Mr. Michael Cocks: I believe that they are both 1-in. maps, but does it not show the deplorable situation we face when we are in doubt about the scale?

Mr. Huckfield: I was relying upon the geography I learned in my O level studies and I took this to be a 2½ in. map. My hon. Friend has reminded me that the Ordnance Survey are discontinuing many of their maps and it may be that this is one which is to remain.
The boundary proposed in the Bill must have been influenced by the predominant type of aircraft using the airport. The boundary eastward and westward certainly approximates to the kind of noise footprint created by the BAC 111, the Trident 1, 2 and 3, the 707 and the DC8. However, in future these aircraft will be superseded by DC10s, Tri-Stars and 747s which have a different noise footprint. The 747 requires a longer takeoff, for example. If the residents of Charlwood and Horley think that they are getting rid of aircraft noise by adopting this boundary, they will have to think again, in view of the new types of aircraft coming into service. Even if the purpose of the Bill is to get rid of the aircraft and of the airport, I do not think that this is a wisely drawn boundary line, and the good people of Charlwood and Horley who have put some money into these proposals would be well advised to think again.
I am reminded of various chapters in Arthur Hailey's book "Airport", which I am sure the Minister has read. A rather well-heeled lawyer comes upon a cluster of residents who live in close proximity to the airport in question and makes a lot of money out of giving them wrong advice about how to change flight paths and noise patterns, knowing full well that many of the people moved into the area after the airport was built and consequently ought to have recognised that there would be a certain amount of inconvenience to them.
I wonder who has been giving advice on legal or noise matters to the people of Charlwood and Horley who have drawn the boundary in this way. Although the boundary line, supported by the eminent biblical quotations read by my hon. Friend the Member for New-castle-under-Lyme, from Upper Prest-wood Farm to Fern Hill may seem geographically, logistically, sociologically and even economically not to have a good basis, it has rather more basis than some of the bases that have been advanced for the boundary line proposed in the Bill.
At least the boundary line put forward by my hon. Friend has some relevance to the boundary as it will be in future, but because of the changes that we shall see in noise footprints and patterns I cannot see that the boundary line proposed in the Bill will have much relevance.
There is another factor that comes to mind, and that is that anybody who knows anything about the operation of Gatwick knows that it is predominantly a charter airport. It is true that British Caledonian, which by foul means or fair, is now the nation's second flag carrier, has its headquarters at Gatwick, and that scheduled flights are going in and out of Gatwick. British Caledonian has regular flights to all parts of the globe, including the Continent, South America and North America.
But apart from that, the bulk of the aircraft using Gatwick are on charter flights—advanced booking charters, affinity group charters, inclusive tours and various types of packages put forward by the tour operators. I say that because many of these operating companies have offices in Charlwood and Horley. How is it that we have an airport that is dependent upon these charter operators, yet the airlines and the people who use the airport but have their offices in Charlwood and Horley want to shuffle off their problems on to somebody else? I do not think that is fair. If people with business accommodation in Charlwood and Horley make their money out of Gatwick Airport, they ought to be prepared to put up with some of the problems generated by the airport.
I understand that a great deal of the raison d'être of the 1972 Local Government Act was to encompass the journey-to-work area of large conurbations and many provincial cities. That being so, I should have thought that the journey-to-work area of Gatwick Airport would encompass Charlwood and Horley because, as many of these tour operating companies have their offices at Charlwood and Horley, there is bound to be a lot of commuting traffic between those parishes and the airport. Consequently, how can we divorce the business accommodation addresses of those who use the airport from the airport itself? For the better functioning of the community, for the better functioning of the airport, and


as Gatwick is now the nation's second airport, I think that the whole thing should be administered by one local authority.
If Heathrow was largely in one GLC borough and the people who worked there were in another—which of course is not the case because Heathrow and the people working there come from several GLC boroughs and counties—then if Heathrow got to the stage where the airport was in one county and the people who worked at the airport were in another county, that would not make for the best functioning of Heathrow. The same argument applies to Gatwick. If we are to reform local government, then there is far more logic if we follow the proposals enunciated by the Government and put in the same county the airport and the catchment area where most of the people in the airport work.
11.45 p.m.
The line suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Golding) goes straight down the main runway. It may well be that Gatwick will have a second runway. The Conservative Government tend to make a lot of noise saying that they will never allow a second runway to be built at Gatwick. I have heard stories like that before, and we know how Governments change their minds. Let us not forget that several Governments ago it was said that the third London airport would be built at Stansted, then it was to be built at Cublington, and then at Maplin—and, after what we heard from the Chancellor of the Exchequer today, I am not sure whether the third London airport will now be built at Maplin. Therefore, instead of one runway at Gatwick, in future, there may be two. If there are to be two runways, we shall require a larger extension of the terminal area at present proposed.
If the Minister looks at Gatwick Airport on the map, he will see the finger of the passenger terminal area stretching out. He probably knows that slightly to the north there is another biock of passenger accommodation now completed—and about time too, because at certain times in the summer Gatwick bears a close resemblance to a knacker's yard

Mr. Wellbeloved: I am sorry to intervene in my hon. Friend's expert and; welcome speech, but he refers to a finger I stretching out. Could he tell me where on the map I will find the block being "built to the north so that I may follow his argument the more closely?

Mr. Huckfield: I have referred to the finger of the passenger terminal. There is another finger that already exists at the airport, but it is not shown on the map. If my hon. Friend follows the railway line coming south from Horley, he will see it then passes across the boundary line proposed in the Bill. If one were to look out of the train window, one would see the new terminal building. It would appear that the new line ' proposed in tie Bill is already out of date, because we already have the situation that the new block of passenger accommodation may not be on the side of the boundary line where the proponents of the Bill want it to be. The terminal accommodation a Gatwick may already be very close to, or even straddling, the boundary line proposed in the Bill. As we may still have a second runway at Gatwick, as the passenger terminal accommodation will have to; expand, and as, with the M23 coming into the airport, we shall have to have more car parking accommodation, I can-; not understand why the boundary line ' should have been drawn in that position.
In the south-east of the airport, where there is a great deal of the present cargo accommodation, there is some very restricted space. I very much doubt whether the operators in that area, which include Laker Airways, British Caledonian, British Islands, British European Airways and Air Tours, think that they can expand further south-east. The present congestion there may well generate a desire to push out to the northeast, in which case the boundary line proposed will be even more irrelevant.
It is most unsatisfactory to have to go to the Library for an Ordnance Survey map dated 1st August, 1970, which is already out of date, because it does not show the extension of terminal accommodation. We have flimsy foundations on which to construct strong arguments. The whole reasoning behing the Bill is wrong. We cannot in future have airports


under one local authority and the people working in them under a different local authority. That is against the line of reasoning adopted by the Government over and over again in their Local Government Act.
The proponents of the Bill may have thought that they were on to a good thing by drawing the boundary line in that shape, because of the present layout of the terminal accommodation. They have failed to take into account that it is the terminal accommodation and ground handling facilities, and even perhaps the runways, that will have to expand at Gatwick. They may have thought that they were doing a good job. keeping the airport one side of the fence and themselves the other, but I do not think that they have done a good job.
This side of the Committee has put arguments which should already have set the Minister thinking again. We put them, despite the lateness of the hour, because we feel that it is wrong in many ways for a Government to try to rush through a contentious measure of this kind at a late hour of night, saying that they must have it quickly because of the emergency situation—a great deal of which they have themselves caused. I am proud to represent Warwickshire miners in the House. I should hate to think that they were blamed for generating a crisis which was then used as an excuse for getting through such a Bill as this, which does not have much good reasoning behind it.
Bearing in mind the lateness of the hour, the good sense in the arguments of my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, South (Mr. Michael Cocks)—he has always advanced good arguments on aviation matters, and they were particularly good tonight, the wealth of biblical experience of my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme, and the even greater depth of perception which my hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Crayford (Mr. Wellbeloved) will bring to bear, I cannot understand why the Government must railroad the Bill through tonight and why they must go flagrantly and even dangerously over the heads of the people they claim to represent. If the Government think that democracy is in danger and that Parliament is falling into disrepute, the right hon. Gentleman is helping that process

by railroading through this measure at this late hour.

Mr. James Wellbeloved: The Committee has been treated to a speech of such clarity and understanding of the problems attached to Gatwick Airport, that I must begin by paying tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Leslie Huckfield) for participating in the debate. I join him in his remarks about the Government's responsibility for keeping the Committee sitting on this measure.
I am fully conscious, as are my hon. Friends, of the difficulties that members of the staff will experience in trying to get home when the Committee eventually rises. It is not enough for us to rest upon the knowledge that the Lord President has made available transport facilities for most, if not all, of the staff, because difficulties may be experienced if sufficient petrol and diesel oil for that transport has not been obtained by the drivers during the day. Nor is it sufficient for us to rely upon the knowledge that most, if not all, of the staff receive night allowances. It is completely unreasonable that the Minister should proceed with the Bill.
The Minister of State, Home Office, from a seated position made an uncomplimentary remark during a previous speech, but it does not lie with him to express phoney indignation on behalf of staff who are being inconvenienced by the decision of his Government's business managers to proceed with the Bill.
According to the Order Paper not only are all the amendments to be debated tonight, but the remaining stages may also be taken. That means that there are seven groups of amendments, including the one we are discussing now, and "clause stand part" debates on each clause yet to be taken.
I hope, even at this late stage, that the Ministers will be prevailed upon to give up their private conversations, come to their senses and move that the proceedings on the Bill be adjourned. By doing that they would recognise the serious situation that faces the nation and be fair to members of the staff. If they are not prepared to respond, it does not lie on my hon. Friends who are opposed to the measure to surrender their responsibilities to protect the rights


of individual citizens because of the insensitivity of Ministers.

Mr. Leslie Huckfield: In view of the urgency of the energy situation and the sacrifices that the rest of the nation is being exhorted to make, would it not be more sensible if we gave up debating this measure, using energy and artificial light at this time of night? I am finding it difficult, even with spectacles, to study the map because we have not got full lighting. Should we not set an example to the nation by stopping these deliberations now, and save power?

The Second Deputy Chairman: Order. We are not on the motion for the Adjournment, but on Amendment No. i. I hope that the hon. Member for Erith and Crayford (Mr. Wellbeloved) will keep more closely to the point.

Mr. Wellbeloved: I have been addressing myself, with my hon. Friend the Member for Nuneaton assisting me, to convincing the Government that they are more likely to get reasonable progress on the Bill if they take a certain course of action. Apparently that is not their intention, so we are left with the more costly and painful process of Parliamentary democracy in ensuring that the Government do not ride roughshod over the people who do not wish the Bill to pass.
The amendment concedes the argument that Horley and Charlwood should come out of Sussex and rejoin Surrey. But it would go further than the Government and put Gatwick back into Surrey as well. As I understand this inadequate map, before the Local Government Act all three lay within Surrey. Under the Act, all three went into West Sussex. My difficulty in following the argument is to be able to see the line of the new boundary on this inadequate map, which, as my hon. Friend the Member for Nuneaton has pointed out, is not up to date; nor is sheet 182 which we have got from the Library.
The amendment suggests that the boundary should start at a new point on the western boundary of the new parish of Charlwood, north-east of Oak-lands Park, and proceed along to Russ Hill and then to Westfield Place. I find myself in difficulty as to where precisely

the boundary proposed in the amendment would then go. My hon. Friend's amendment says:
… round the … perimeter of Gatwick Airport".
Neither on the inadequate map supplied by the Government nor on Ordnance Sheet 182 can I see the perimeter of the airport adequately depicted. So we are in the difficulty that it is not possible to take fully into account my hon. Friend's intention in the absence of adequate maps upon which to base our judgment.
It may be that the perimeter of Gatwick airport stretches down to the presumably unclassified highway shown on Ordnance Sheet 182 in yellow marking and shown in the legend at the bottom of the sheet as being a 14-foot highway, metalled and tarmacked. If that be the case, I am unable to decide whether that is a boundary which goes wider than the original boundary of the old Surrey County Council with the old Sussex County Council, and whether what my hon. Friend proposes is radical and very different from all that has gone before.
If I am correct, and I know not because of the inadequacy of the documentation before the Committee, that 14-foot highway eventually joins the A23, and the A23 passes the easterly end of the airport. Therefore I assume that what my hon. Friend means is that we should take that unclassified road shown in yellow on the map and its junction with the A23 up to what my hon. Friend the Member for Nuneaton describes as the terminal building as being the boundary proposed in the amendment.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, South (Mr. Michael Cocks) looks slightly puzzled, I understand his difficulty. But if that is what he is proposing, I am afraid that it does not have my support because I do not believe it to be an adequate boundary. It would be better if my hon. Friend reverted to the original county boundary prior to the passing of the Local Government Act 1972.

Mr. Michael Cocks: My understanding was that had I adopted my hon. Friend's suggestion my amendment would have been out of order since it would have been outside the Long Title of the Bill which refers to transferring
… parts of the new parishes of Charlwood and Horley to the new county of Surrey….

Mr. Wellbeloved: I accept that explanation, and I regret that the Government's drafting of this very difficult Bill failed to make proper provision which would have allowed hon. Members to put forward more adequate and sensible amendments.
The maps are so difficult to follow that I was prompted earlier, Mr. Murton, to put a point of order to your predecessor in the Chair about the availability of documents. But I understand that it is not within the competence of the Chair in Committee to force the Government to do their duty and make available to hon. Members documents which allow for proper debate. That is not a new feature of this Government. It has happened on previous occasions. Opposition Members cannot be heard complaining overmuch at what has become a commonplace occurrence under this administration.
Fortunately, in my youth, I was a boy scout. Therefore, when I look at a map and am advised by my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, South, that it is the normal custom for a map to be printed with north at the top, I am able to work out where east, west and south lie because, as a boy scout, I was taught that it is easy to remember in which direction the other three points of the compass lie from north by the simple slogan, "Never eat sausages Wednesday".
Having that little matter tucked away in my mind, I was able to sort out the western and eastern boundaries of Gat-wick Airport and in which direction we were moving during the discussion on these matters. But that was a rudimentary matter because, even with that aid, it was still difficult to follow precisely the intention of my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, South.
I turn now to the amendment put down by my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Golding) who has obviously taken himself off to refresh his voice for later speeches on other amendments. His amendment is to move the said boundary to a line drawn between Upper Prestwood Farm to Fern-hill. But, as my hon. Friend the Member for Nuneaton has pointed out, there is no such place on the map as Fernhill; it is Ternhill. That is an understandable mistake.

Mr. Leslie Huckfield: It is not Tern-hill, but Fernhill.

Mr. Wellbeloved: I am delighted that my hon. Friend has such an eagle eye. I can appreciate the error made by my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme and by the Clerks at the table in accepting an amendment which was not geographically accurate because it referred to a place which did not exist on the map supplied by the Government. I suppose that the blame is universal, but the greater share must fall upon those small men who occupy the Treasury Bench.
My hon. Friend's amendment, though he quoted the Gospel and the judgment of Solomon, does not meet with my approval either. His suggestion would cut Gatwick Airport in half by imposing the boundary between the two county authorities down the main runway. I cannot conceive of any proposition more likely to cause terrible trouble and difficulty in future years than the acceptance of my hon. Friend's amendment. Should he push his amendment to the vote, it would be my intention to vote against it. I should do that on the basis that, having had moderate experience on a local authority, I know of some of the problems that can arise when there is a split responsibility in an area of such importance as Gatwick.
In the London Borough of Bexley a massive new development—Thamesmead—is taking place. It is artificially divided by the boundary between the London Boroughs of Greenwich and of Bexley. I know of the serious administrative problems that are already occurring because of this division of responsibility between two authorities for what is, to all intents and purposes, designed to be a whole.
12.15 a.m.
I do not want anyone to take it from those remarks that I am advocating that I should lose my part of the Thamesmead development. I would welcome the part that has fallen within Greenwich coming within my area. If I continue on that matter, I know that you, Mr. Mallalieu, will bring mc back to more detailed discussion on the amendment, so I leave the parallel there.
What are the problem which will befall Gatwick and the two county authorities


if my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme were successful in getting his amendment carried? The first thing would be the serious competition that would take place in respect of the grant of planning permission for development at the airport. The competition would be between the two authorities. Whichever authority was fortunate enough to be the authority for the particular part of the airport upon which application for planning permission had been made, for development of offices, storage accommodation, or whatever it may be, would be the recipient of substantial gain in rateable value.
The Committee may imagine what would happen. The Gatwick Airport Authority could almost bargain with the two county authorities for all sorts of facilities, indeed, perhaps for some cash grant towards the development, in the sure knowledge that whichever county authority gave it the best bargain would in the long run receive a fairly substantial increase in its rateable values and, therefore, a fairly substantial advantage for its ratepayers.
Then there would be the question which arises from the very important point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Nuneaton, that much of the office accommodation lies in Horley and in Charlwood. I accept my hon. Friend's word for that. I do not know the area in detail and in depth, as does my hon. Friend. But if that be so, and some of the office accommodation which exists or may exist under future planning permissions is outside the administrative county of Surrey, there would be the question of what happens when some of that accommodation is occupied by a caretaker, by a manager or by some other member of the staff, which makes it a mixed hereditament in respect of rates and the domestic element of the rates.
The Minister is very familiar with this matter. He has served, in an absolutely non-party sense, in a most distinguished capacity on the Local Government Bill. I regret very much that we have not debated this week the Report stage of that Bill, because it deals with finance and with the point which I am now adducing to the Committee. The Minister will understand more fully than I the reasons; why that Bill, despite the fact

that we were told that it had to be galloped through before the end of this week in order that local authorities could be paid their rate support grant, is not now to be dealt with finally until after the Christmas Recess.
Once again, however, I return to the amendment, before your eagle eye, Mr. Mallalieu, and your acute hearing detect that I have strayed marginally away from the subject before the Committee. I return to the serious problem of the mixed hereditament. If part of Gatwick Airport, as suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for Nuneaton, is in a separate county authority, there will be two rating authorities dealing with the apportionment of the mixed hereditaments.
The rating authority for Surrey might allot a different proportion of the floor area to business from that apportioned in identical buildings in West Sussex. That would be most unfair to the unfortunate person who happened to live in the next dwelling, because he would have to bear a higher proportion of the rate demand applicable to the dwelling than perhaps his counterpart would in the next county.
The solution proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme would create so many problems, difficulties and opportunities for misunderstanding between the various authorities because of this division of responsibility that I would be absolutely opposed to it, and I hope that my hon. Friend will not press his amendment to a Division.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, South began by referring to the difficulties which were experienced by petitioners to the Bill when they appeared before the Select Committee. I share my hon. Friend's view that it is unfortunate that in matters of this nature ordinary citizens who are unrepresented by learned counsel, perhaps because of the burden of costs involved, should so be so sat upon by learned counsel. I know from experience that the Chairman of a Select Committee will always attempt to protect the unrepresented petitioner. I know not whether this was the case on this Committee, because I have not yet had the advantage of reading the report of the Committee in such detail as my hon. Friend has. It is a requirement that we should ensure that people who are unrepresented get a fair crack of the whip.


I am therefore delighted that my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, South has tabled the amendment in an effort to redress any shortfall that he feels may have occurred when this clause was before the Committee.
I cannot see any great reason for supporting either the clause as it stands or any of the amendments which have so far been propounded. I believe that it would be wrong for us to change the law as regards this boundary. Parliament has decided that Charlwood, Horley and Gatwick should be in West Sussex. I have not yet heard an argument from either side that convinces me that we should change that, either by accepting the clause unamended or as it is proposed to be amended.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, South said that a poll had been held in the Horley area which was 600 to 60, if I heard his figures correctly, in favour of a change.

Mr. Michael Cocks: They were figures given by the hon. Member for Dorking (Sir G. Sinclair). It was not a poll. It was a vote at a parish meeting. The figures were 600 to 10.

Mr. Wellbeloved: I am obliged to my hon. Friend.
There are many areas which would have liked to have had the opportunity to receive this very favourable and privileged treatment, and I hope that the Minister will say why he has decided to keep the House up till this unreasonable hour debating a matter which is designed to confer a privilege upon this one small section of England and Wales which was subject to the reorganisation under the Local Government Act 1972.
It is scandalous that we should have to discuss an amendment such as that proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, South, arising directly as a result of the privilege that the Government are conferring on this one section of the community. I am certain that any small community throughout the country would have gone on bended knees and kissed the feet of the Minister—that would have been rather distasteful, but I know how passionately people hold to their parochial ties and they would have gladly suffered that indignity—if doing so would have conferred on them the privilege that the Minister seems bent on

would be taken by the Government to and Horley.
What is the motivation? Is there a little gerrymandering of boundaries? I recall that when the Local Government Act was going through the House there was a great deal of anguish about the borders touching on Surrey, and many things were done to accommodate that select area. My hon. Friend wishes to intervene.

Mr. Leadbitter: My hon. Friend has deployed an argument inviting intervention. He suggests that the Government's proposal is unacceptable and that the amendment would not be a suitable answer, although it has been explained that it has been so drafted because of the terminology of the Bill. Would not my hon. Friend say that in such circumstances the Minister would be wise to consider whether the best solution might not be to await the review of local government boundaries for which Section 48 of the Local Government Act provides?

Mr. Wellbeloved: That might well have been a more sensible course, but the Government have decided not to follow it.
Tonight we are defending the desire of some people to uphold the present law, a desire which I should have thought would be dear to the Minister's heart. My hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Golding) mentioned the Book and quoted the judgment of Solomon. Hon. Members have taken on the duty of representing the views of the citizens of Charlwood and Horley. The correct quotation would have been from St. Paul's Epistle to the Ephesians:
For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness …

12.30 p.m.

Mr. Graham Page: The hon. Member for Bristol, South (Mr. Michael Cocks) complained about the slack drafting, as he called it, of the Long Title, but he was complaining only because it allowed him to put the amendment. I have never heard that argument before, and it seems extraordinary.
I am sorry that the maps lost sharpness in copying. They are, however, in accordance with standing orders and the


officially deposited map is in the Private Bill Office, as right hon. and hon. Members can see from the last words of Clause 1(2). The map is deposited
in the Office of the Clerk of the Parliaments and the Private Bill Office of the House of Commons.
Therefore, the maps in the Vote Office could easily be checked against the official map.
As has been clearly explained, the effect of the amendments would be to return Gatwick Airport to Surrey. The argument of the hon. Member for Bristol, South in support of this at one stage was that Gatwick was London-oriented. Gatwick, of course, is an aerodrome for the whole of the South-East. It is not an airport for London alone.
The hon. Member also complained that learned counsel before the Select Committee endeavoured to discredit the locus standi of the petitioners there. It is interesting to note, however, that all those who have supported the amendment and complained that the petitioners failed to get a fair hearing before the Select Committee are proposing an amendment exactly contrary to what the petitioners were asking should be done before the Select Committee. It is an astonishing argument to use on the Floor of the House of Commons that the supporters wish to protect the petitioners before the Select Committee upstairs and then put exactly the contrary case.
The petitioners were asking that Charlwood and Horley should go into West Sussex. The amendment leaves Charlwood and Horley in Surrey and tries to move Gatwick into Surrey. To that extent, I would have thought, the amendment would be entirely unacceptable to the petitioners before the Select Committee and certainly is contrary to the petitioners' case.
The hon. Member for Bristol, South said that he wanted to give the Government an opportunity to think again on this subject. This has been, and is, a major issue of principle which was thrashed out in the course of the debates on the Local Government Bill, when the Government made it clear that in their view it was essential that Gatwick should go into West Sussex with Crawley.
As regards Charlwood and Horley there was not a matter of principle involved. Therefore, the undertaking was given during the stages of the Local Government Bill, which became the Local Government Act 1972, that, if those areas showed that they wished to remain in Surrey, no principle was involved and they could so remain.
There are, of course, strong planning arguments in favour of linking the airport with the urban growth of Crawley, far stronger than for linking it with the comparatively small residential areas to the north, the Horley and Charlwood area. I say "comparatively small"; it is small compared with the development of Crawley to the south. This brings the growth area and the airport, as we have done in the Local Government Act, under a single strategic planning authority—West Sussex. That was the basis on which the decision was made during the course of the Bill which became the Local Government Act 1972.
I know that for a long time the issue was that Charlwood and Horley wished to remain with Gatwick whether Gatwick was in West Sussex or in Surrey. They argued that case throughout the process of the Bill until it reached another place and finally their argument was beaten there. It was then that the parish meetings were held to show the wish of the people in Horley and Charlwood to remain in Surrey even though Gatwick was to go to West Sussex.
If one chose the line proposed by the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Golding), one would have a county boundary down the middle of Gatwick runway. I cannot think that the hon. Member meant that, and I do not intend to treat the amendment seriously. I do not think he would wish me to do so.
Some points of substance were made by the hon. Member for The Hartlepools (Mr. Leadbitter) when he spoke about the area which Gatwick drains. When considering local government services one looks to see where the combination of the areas can be. But this, as the hon. Member knows, will not be a local government service after 1st April next. It will be in the hands of the regional water authority, which will not be affected by county boundaries. That argument


for putting Gatwick into Surrey falls to the ground.
Part of the argument put forward by the hon. Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Leslie Huckfield) was that there were a few offices of travel agents over the boundary and that they took bookings for charter flights at Gatwick. I should have thought that most bookings were taken in London, and we could hardly include London in West Sussex.

Mr. Leslie Huckfield: The Minister probably knows that many American supplemental airlines have West End offices, but their big administrative centres and main telecommunications links with the States are not in London; they happen to be in Horley. I am not talking merely about package tours; I am talking about airline operators. A fair number have their main administrative offices in Horley and not in the West End.

Mr. Page: I would balance that against the argument of the growth area in Crawley and the necessity to keep Gatwick in Crawley, to the south. There can be both residential and office arguments based on the fact that people live in Horley and Charlwood and work across the county boundary, at Gatwick. There may be commercial offices in Horley and Charlwood which have business to do at Gatwick. That must happen in the case of every county boundary throughout the land.
We must balance one argument against the other. The argument chosen by the Government—I believe rightly—and passed through the House in the Local Government Bill, was that Gatwick should be with West Sussex.
Some hon. Members put forward rather exaggerated arguments about democracy and the common man, and about considering the wishes of the people. This is just what we have done, and we have made it plain throughout that we were doing so. There is no question of our changing our minds after the measure has received the Royal Assent. During the passage of the Bill we gave a firm undertaking to the House that if Horley and Charlwood wished to be in Surrey we would do what was necessary to put them there. I do not wish to blame them unnecessarily, but they delayed coming to a decision until a week after the Royal Assent. Nevertheless, I thought

it right that we should carry out our undertaking.
I am surprised that hon. Members should put forward the argument that we are not democratic or are not following the wishes of the people. That is just what we are doing. We are carrying out a Government undertaking. On those grounds, I must ask the Committee to resist the amendment.

Mr. Wellbeloved: The Minister will not find that his arguments are acceptable to many Opposition Members. He says that in this measure the Government are following the democratic process and taking into account the will of the people. I want to hear from the Minister—he has not yet made it clear to the House—why the Government gave the undertaking to which he has referred during the passage of the Local Government Bill.
I seem to recall that there were a great many pleas by many local authorities which then existed. There were long and protracted debates in Committee and on Report on the rights of local people to have an opportunity of exercising self-determination. Why, when the Government turned a deaf ear to all the pleas from authorities which wanted to maintain their existing traditional ties, have only little Charlwood and Horley, which used to be in Surrey, had thrown behind them, in their desire for democratic expresion of will, the whole panoply of Government in the form of the Bill? I do not believe that it is acceptable for the Minister to make the plea that he has made that he is responding to the democratic wish of the people of that area when he has turned a stony heart to every other plea.

Mr. Graham Page: Does the hon. Member think that he is responding to the wish of the people when he is acting entirely contrary to the petitioner who said that he was representing a number of people and when the amendment he is supporting tonight is entirely contrary to that?

Mr. Welbelloved: Had the Minister done me the courtesy of listening he would know that I am opposed to both amendments.

Mr. Page: May I withdrawn what I said? I thought that the hon. Member


was entirely against the amendment in the name of the hon. Member for New-castle-under-Lyme (Mr. Golding). It was to that that he addressed most of his remarks. I am sorry if I misjudged him.

Mr. Wellbeloved: I should not want the Minister to proceed upon an unreasonable course because he had failed to understand my case. In view of the Minister's abysmal ignorance of the debate, it would no doubt be appropriate if I recalled the main point of his argument.
I entirely share the Minister's view that the amendment in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Golding) would be a completely unacceptable alternative and would create for the people of the area a ridiculous situation. I am equally opposed to the amendment in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, South (Mr. Michael Cocks) because it accepts in principle the Government proposition that Charlwood and Horley should go back into Surrey. The only difference between my hon. Friend and the Minister is that my hon. Friend wants Gatwick airport to go into Surrey as well.
I take a completely opposite view, for the reasons I have given to the Minister. It would be a negation of the Government's responsibility to other areas which during the passage of the Local Government Bill made equally good cases but were never given the opportunity of having polls to ascertain the views of the local people. My whole argument is based upon the premise that it is wrong for the Government to invoke all the power at their disposal to give what they see as a response to democracy in these two small areas, however important that may be—I understand how important it is to the people who live there, and I do not detract from their arguments—but it is undemocratic—indeed, it is disgraceful—when the Government and the Minister turn a deaf ear to all the other pleas that have been made, while they confer this privilege upon one small section of the country, ignoring all the others.
I do not understand from what the Minister said why he came to this decision.

I gather that the Government were almost defeated on this issue when the Bill was going through the House, and I think that that is the more likely reason for the Government's action tonight. This is a response not to democracy but to blackmail. They are conferring this privilege upon these two areas because they were blackmailed into doing so by their near defeat.
If that is the basis upon which the Government pursue their duty to all the people of this country, it is little wonder that they invoke so small a response at this time of grave economic crisis.

Mr. Leadbitter: The Minister was kind enough to take up my reference to the drainage of the catchment area concerned into the River Mole. He did so not as a debating point but as a point of fact and addressed himself to the new position of the river authorities.
I accept that, having made the point, the Minister can rightly assume that the domestic responsibility of Surrey as it was compared with that of the West Sussex area is materially changed, and that is a matter with which I now wish to deal in a more specific manner.
The River Mole runs through Surrey into the Thames. On its journey through West Sussex, it does not cover as much of the country as it does the county of Surrey when it goes through there. There is now a new water authority that will be responsible for the drainage and conservation areas of the waterways concerned- The non-metropolitan county boroughs will each have one representative on this body, which is different from metropolitan county boroughs which have two. West Sussex and Surrey, being non-metropolitan counties, will have equal representation, and the other representatives on the authority will be chosen in accordance with the provisions of the Local Government Act.
The fact remains that as the greater part of the River Mole runs through Surrey, this will be a pertinent point to be considered by the inhabitants of that county. The Minister said he hoped that we would not be vexed on this matter in terms of the will of the people. But it is the people of Surrey who will be affected by what happens to the River Mole. It is not sufficient to invoke the responsibilities of the new water board


in such a way as to sweep aside important points made in this House, and in another place by Lord Garnsworthy.
We have considered the social consequences, economic considerations, and political representation in terms of electoral divisions into districts and wards all on the basis of consultation with people. It is important all the time to consider the needs and desires of the people. The considerations of the people who live in an area and who carry out their leisure activities in the area and all the rest of it must be upheld as they are upheld in any other county—on the basis not of total rateable value but of rateable value per head of population.
It has been argued that the rateable value in Surrey is larger than that in West Sussex. A number of cold planning projections have been made in the Strategic Plan for the South-East. The plan has taken little consideration of people but has taken in all the views of pseudo-experts and people with other interests. One noble Lady in another place spent some time describing a visit to her daughter within the area of Gatwick airport as if that were a relevant point. But the strategic plan disregarded vital questions of rateable values.
The population of Surrey is about 1 million and obviously a larger population will have a larger total rateable value. West Sussex has a smaller population, but the rateable value per head in Surrey is smaller than that per head of population in West Sussex. In considering the planning of schools, housing and the general infrastructure in terms of the planning powers of the new authorities, we must take account of the financial capacity per head and examine how this affects the individual in meeting the demands of social and amenity developments. Therefore, the argument for taking Gatwick Airport away from Surrey falls to the ground.
When there was a controversy similar in intensity, though not in kind, in the Cleveland area, the Minister said that the non-metropolitan county status was likely to be changed, and the metropolitan condition come about in about 10 years. That satisfied many people, because in local government reorganisation a 10-year period is reasonable. He could have called upon Section 48 of the Act

and done much the same thing for Gatwick.
The Minister's point about drainage falls to the ground, for the reasons I have given. A matter that concerns individuals is the rateable value, particularly as the Government are pushing up the rates as hard as they can and, worse than that, are foisting the blame on the local authorities. I feel that the claim of Surrey was stronger in that sense.
The Minister could have got the matter off his back by telling the people of West Sussex and Surrey that the position could be resolved with Charlwood, Horley and Gatwick remaining in their natural county, by review under the provisions of Section 48.

Mr. Michael Cocks: I thank the Minister for his reply. I shall resist the temptation to answer some of his points, because I feel that there is still time for him to think again and perhaps introduce a similar amendment or amendments in another place. I therefore seek leave to withdraw the amendment.

The First Deputy Chairman (Mr. E. L. Mallalieu): Is the amendment withdrawn by the mover?

Mr. Oakes: Yes, Mr. Mallalieu. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

1.0 a.m.

Mr. Michael Cocks: I was approached by someone who lives right on the boundary of the area, who suggested that I could put down an amendment to meet his case and that of his neighbours. But he told me that the drafting of the clause gave him some hope, because
The Bill states that the border shall run eastwards ' on or near the general line ' of the Charlwood-Hookwood road. A small adjustment to the border in a northerly direction would place our houses, which are situated a short distance to the west of Povey Cross crossroads, in Sussex.
I telephoned him to ask about his problem, and he told me that there is a small area of about a dozen houses several of whose residents feel that they should be in Sussex because they are virtually disfranchised. They have no direct control over airport development. He says that if


there is a second runway at Gatwick, which some people in Crawley are pressing for, their houses will be virtually on top of it. There will be many kinds of ancillary development there, which would render the properties virtually uninhabitabel and greatly reduce their value.
If I were to forward the correspondence to the Minister, perhaps he would consider it seriously, because even within the clause as now drafted he could meet the arguments put forward by this small group of people who otherwise would have in mind a petition to the other place.

Mr. Graham Page: I am looking into that point. When one adjusts boundaries in a small way I think it is called "mereing" the boundaries. I am sure that we could meet it if it is a point of that sort. If the hon. Gentleman will put it in writing we will consider it.

Mr. Wellbeloved: The debate has been so unsatisfactory and the documentation so inadequate that I hope that my hon. Friends will join me in dividing the Committee on the clause. We cannot allow this occasion to pass without expressing a strong protest, not only at the denial of democracy enshrined in the clause but at the denial of justice for people with similar claims. We have also been forced by the Government to sit for three hours, keeping staff here and causing them to suffer great inconvenience. [Interruption.] If the hon. Member for Middleton and Prestwich (Mr. Haselhurst) wishes to intervene, perhaps he will have the courtesy to use the normal parliamentary method of standing and asking the hon. Member who has the floor to give way, instead of sitting behind his Minister and making snide remarks, when he knows that it is the responsibility of his own Front Bench——

The First Deputy Chairman: Order. I think the hon. Member will agree that it is for the Chair to keep order in the Committee and not for him to lecture at length.

Division No. 26.1
AYES
[1.6 a.m.


Atkins, Humphrey
Fox, Marcus
Jopllng, Michael


Bray, Ronald
Gray, Hamish
McNair-Wilson, Michael


Carlisle, Mark
Haselhurst, Alan
Money, Ernie


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Hawkins, Paul
Page, Rt. Hn. Graham (Crosby)


Clegg, Walter
Hicks, Robert
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Cormack, Patrick
Hill, John E. B. (Norfolk, S.)
Sinclair, Sir George

Mr. Wellbeloved: I entirely agree. I am sure it is no fault of yours, Mr. Mallalieu. There must have been a reduction in the voltage in the microphone that caused you not to hear the remark and so fail to protect me from such undignified behaviour. I therefore had to protect myself, and apologise for having done so.
The Government Front Bench is responsible for the inconvenience that has been caused to staff and for the wastage of scarce energy in the form of electricity for lighting and heating—all because of the Government's determination to get through this miserable little measure almost behind the parliamentary scenes.

Mr. Leadbitter: My hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Crayford (Mr. Wellbeloved) has just reason for wanting to divide the Committee. The arguments that have been advanced in favour of the amendment are positive.
According to comments made in another place by those who know the area well, there are proposals for considerable development at Horley. Much of the argument in the other place was concerned with the Strategic Plan for the South-East from which it appears that expansion is likely to occur in the Crawley area.
Because of the green belt in Surrey, and if the development in Crawley and the pressures in the area are what they are, and the conclusions in the Strategic Plan persuade the Government to leave Gatwick in West Sussex, it is pertinent to put it to the right hon. Gentleman that the House has not had the full potential development proposals put before it for consideration. That is an added argument for a more generous response from the right hon. Gentleman.

Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill:

The Committee divided: Ayes, 23, Noes 0.

Speed, Keith
Trafford, Dr. Anthony
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Spence, John
Weatherill, Bernard
Mr. Alfred Hall-Davis and


Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)

Mr. David Walder




NOES


Nil


TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Mr. Ted Leadbitter and


Mr. James Wellbeloved

It appearing on the report of the Division that forty Members were not present, the FIRST DEPUTY CHAIRMAN declared that the Question was not decided, and the business under consideration stood over until the next Sitting of the House.

Orders of the Day — CHANNEL TUNNEL BILL

Ordered,
That Dr. Edmund Marshall, Mr. Jasper More, Mr. Giles Radice and Dr. Gerard Vaughan be members of the Select Committee on the Channel Tunnel Bill.—[Mr. Weatherill.]

ADJOURNMENT

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Hall-Davis.]

Orders of the Day — ROADS (CANNOCK)

1.14 a.m.

Mr. Patrick Cormack: I should like to begin by apologising to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary for keeping him up so late. I realise that he has much to occupy him and that he has not been too well recently. I also take this opportunity to thank him for his unfailing courtesy and considerable help over a long period in what is an extremely important constituency issue. I hope that he will set his seal on all his endeavours by giving me a good answer tonight.
My hon. Friend is slightly lucky on this occasion, because when I last raised this subject on the Adjournment in February 1971 we began at 4.14 a.m. Therefore, he has escaped lightly compared with his hon. Friend, now the Minister for Aerospace and Shipping, who had to answer at that time, and my hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin (Dr. Trafford), who, again, I am pleased to see this evening.
The improvements that are necessary to the A5 and the siting of the M54

form a very important constituency issue for Cannock. It goes back before the General Election. Indeed, it was one of the local issues in the election. At that stage the proposal was to drive a motorway link from the M6 to Telford and three possible routes were being discussed.
I took a different line from the beginning, with almost unanimous local support. I suggested that the proper solution to the traffic problems of Telford and the least damaging environmentally would be to widen and to improve the existing trunk road—the A5. I advanced that solution on a number of occasions, including the last debate on the issue in the House.
As a result, my hon. Friends were helpful. An inquiry was held at which a northern route—not the A5, but a road near it, which was not a very satisfactory route—was considered as an alternative to the so-called southern route.
The inspector made his report and the Minister made his decision. The inspector's report was not entirely satisfactory, in as much as he did not come down firmly in favour of one route or the other. He pointed out that there were considerable environmental objections to the southern route and suggested that perhaps further investigation should be conducted in the northern corridor near the A5.
However, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, over a year after the inquiry had finished, decided that it should be the southern route. I must say, in as restrained and respectful a manner as I can, that the way in which my right hon. Friend made his decision has caused a great deal of disturbance and ill-feeling locally. The impression was given that the whole thing was a fait accompli from the start and that the inquiry was superfluous and the inspector's recommendations were not listened to. I do not go along with that. I do not believe that is was a fait accompli. I believe that the inquiry was a valuable exercise. But


local people, inevitably close to the problem and terribly affected by it, feel extremely disturbed.
The attitude, on environmental grounds, of the CPRE and the important article in Country Life in the summer served to underline this dissatisfaction. The reason was the fact that the landscape through which the southern route would carve its way is of quite outstanding quality. I do not want to expand upon its beauties at great length because I want to leave time for my hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin to make some comments. But it is a beautiful landscape. I should like to mention one or two places. There is Chillington, within my constituency, which with its wonderful Capability Brown landscaped park and the countryside around is one of the gems of rural England. The whole area between my home village of Brewood and the neighbouring village of Codsall is tremendously attractive. The fact that it is so near one of the biggest conurbations in the country makes it that much more attractive by comparison. In my hon. Friend's constituency, around Tong, the gems are there for all to see.
What I shall suggest tonight, in the light of the recent announcement of cuts in public expenditure, is that my right hon. and learned Friend should perhaps rethink this matter. Perhaps this could be one of the roads which could be cut or at least deferred. I hope that my hon. Friend the" Under-Secretary will say something about that.
However, whatever happens with regard to the M54, the problem of the A5 remains as acute as ever, and improvements between Gailey and Weston-under-Lizard are absolutely essential. They would produce the same sort of miraculous improvement in traffic flow as has been achieved in Brownhills recently.
I shall make the rest of my remarks on the assumption that the decision will not be reversed, because we have to act on that assumption tonight. As I said, whatever happens with regard to the M54, the A5 must be improved. It is inadequate throughout this whole stretch. As long ago as September 1970. the then Minister said that there was no doubt that the existing length of the A5 was inadequate for the traffic then using it.

Since then the daily traffic flow has risen by 20 per cent., according to an Answer that I was given as recently as 28th November.
I want to speak briefly about two particular sections of the A5. Ivetsey Bank and Weston-under-Lizard are both accident hazards. Ivetsey Bank crossroads are on the crest of a hill. Something must be done about that, and done soon. But perhaps the most crying need of all is for the village of Weston-under-Lizard. This charming and delightful rural spot is an obvious candidate for a bypass, and for some 50 years a by-pass has been on the cards and pressed for by local people. Surely the time has come when their pleas and prayers should be answered. Every walk taken in that village is almost a walk with death. The peace of the area and the nerves of its people are shattered. Will my hon. Friend give a little hope that these people will be able to live in an atmopshere of tranquillity, calm and safety?
With regard to the M54, at present the proposed southern route is the subject of a great deal of anxiety. I have mentioned the beauties of Chillington, the area between Brewood and Codsall, and so on. The level of the road in certain places is causing acute local concern. If this route is to be persisted with, we should have a new and radical departure in motorway preparation.
Perhaps my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State will consider the idea which I put to him some time ago of a landscaping consultant answerable directly to him through my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary—somebody who would talk to the people, who would discuss their problems, who would listen to their proposed solutions, who would allow of a real degree of public participation.
I am not casting any aspersions on the RCU, which has a difficult task to do and which does it as conscientiously as it can, but it is not sufficient for local people—my constituents—to talk merely to civil servants: they need somebody else. Although this would be creating a precedent, I believe that it would be a happy one and would show that the Minister has at heart the beauties of the environment. Although there may be occasions when economic considerations have to outweigh environmental ones, if


this were done at least it would be shown that every step was being taken to safeguard the environmental glories that are there.
May I ask my hon. Friend, finally, whether at least he will agree to come to my constituency and discuss these issues with the people there, so that they can talk to him. I will say no more tonight. I hope that I shall have some reassurance on these various points from my hon. Friend—in other words, a promise on the A5, a landscape consultant or something equivalent, and the promise of his presence in my constituency at an early date.

1.26 a.m.

Dr. Anthony Trafford: I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock (Mr. Cormack) for his courtesy in allowing me to make two points. He knows, as does my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary, that I take a slightly different view about the motorway and its necessity. I believe that it is necessary to have a motorway link. Although I personally favoured a different route, the fact is that the over-riding necessity was to have a motorway into the area and to have a decision taken so that local people could make plans for the future.
I regarded the inspector's report as totally useless, because it decided nothing. The whole purpose of a report is to come to a conclusion. No conclusion was reached and a rather vague recommendation was made, thus giving credence to the idea amongst local people that the whole thing was a put-up job and that it was all a foregone conclusion. I share with my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock the view that it was not so.
I should also like to take the opportunity of thanking my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary for his personal courtesy in the way he has dealt with this matter, for the number of times he has seen us, and for the great deal of trouble he has taken over it.
May I ask my hon Friend the Under-Secretary to say something about the green belt in the area which has been designated an interim green belt? The word "interim" has caused a certain amount of alarm locally. I am virtually asking my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary, first, whether he could take a view on this landscaping of the route—I support

my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock in this—and, secondly, whether he can reassure local people about the green belt in their area. I am glad that a decision has now been taken. I think that it was right that a motorway should have been decided upon, even though I am sorry about the route chosen. But now that the decision has been made—and I assume that it stands—it is important that the local people should be reassured both about the future of the green belt in the area around the road and about the landscaping of the road itself.

1.28 a.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Keith Speed): I thank my hon. Friends the Members for Cannock (Mr. Cormack) and for The Wrekin (Dr. Trafford) for their very kind remarks about me.
Dealing first with the question of the green belt, the proposals are now, I hope, reaching their final stages. They still have to be confirmed by my right hon. and learned Friend. Basically, they are of two kinds, the first being a green belt which it is proposed fully to confirm. That should reassure the constituents of my hon. Friends.
As regards the interim green belt through which this motorway, when it is built, will run, the interim green belt is being treated by my Department and by the local authority to all intents and purposes as if it were a confirmed green belt. The question mark that hangs over it is final confirmation in the structure plans of Salop and Staffordshire.
However, it was made clear to developers and others when statements were issued by my right hon. and learned Friend and myself a few months ago to the effect that it should be treated to all intents and purposes as if it were a confirmed green belt. It is merely awaiting a final decision upon its status.
If anyone thinks that he will be able to rush in and undertake developments alongside the motorway, or elsewhere in this interim area, I suspect that he may find that not only the local authority but my Department would have to treat each planning application on its merits, as would be usual, but also against a background as though the area had been confirmed green belt. I hope that before long it will be possible finally to decide


the interim areas throughout the West Midlands.
I should like to say at the start of this short but important debate that my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment is very well aware of the deep concern that my hon. Friend has expressed on a number of occasions about the effect that the M54 could have on the environment of this part of the West Midlands if it were not treated with the utmost sensitivity and the greatest possible attention paid to methods of alleviating visual intrusion into attractive and unspoilt countryside. My hon. Friend the Member for Cannock has on a number of occasions written to my right hon. and learn Friend and discussed with him and with me the decision about the route.
I accept that my hon. Friend has been sincerely convinced that an alternative scheme involving extensive improvements to the existing A5 and possibly a new route in the A5 corridor could have been a better solution on planning and economic grounds, but I must repeat that the Secretary of State's decision in favour of the southern route for the motorway was taken only after the fullest possible consideration of the inspector's report following the public inquiry and the fullest possible consideration of all the objections and representations made at and prior to the inquiry.
My right hon. and learn Friend's decision about the route was influenced by the fact that no northern route could be found which would have environmental advantages sufficient to outweigh the substantial traffic and economic advantages of the southern route. In effect, this means that even if it were possible to find a northern route for the motorway which had no environmental disadvantages at all, which is a rather unlikely event, this would not offset the margin of advantage in other terms offered by the southern route.
I should like to set the record straight by emphasising that in his report the independent—I stress "independent"—inspector did not in fact recommend rejection of the southern route but rather that before the draft scheme for this route was made there should be further investigation into the feasibility of a less

intrusive route in the northern corridor. As I have said, no such route could be found, and it was only after carefully reviewing this recommendation in the light of all the information available to him that the Secretary of State decided not to proceed with further studies. The Secretary of State agreed with the inspector's firm conclusion that in terms of traffic and economics the published southern route had significant advanta-ages, and he concluded that overall advantage would lie with adopting the southern route.
I should say that I appreciate fully that the construction of a motorway inevitably involves intrusion into the environment—I already have one in my constituency and another coming shortly—but I stress again that the Secretary of State has made clear that he considers that the damaging effects can be greatly reduced by sensitivity in design and environmental treatment.
I wish to re-emphasise this because my right hon. and learned Friend has been mistakenly accused by a number of people of either ignoring the inspector's views or rejecting a recommendation in favour of a northern route, neither of which has happened. I must emphasise, as my hon. Friends have, that the public inquiry was not just a farce. There was no fait accompli before the inquiry or before the inspector's report was received.
I must make clear at this stage that there is absolutely no possibility—I cannot respond to my hon. Friend's invitation—of the Secretary of State's decision being altered in the present circumstances. The motorway link for Telford is urgently required, and, given satisfactory conclusion of the statutory procedures and funds being available at the time, it is our intention to proceed with the detailed design and construction of the motorway. This decision to proceed with the M54 Telford Motorway will result in a significant reduction of traffic on the section of the A5 between Gayley Interchange and Weston-under-Lizard, the stretch of the A5 referred to by my hon. Friend.
The section to which my hon. Friend refers is generally a 22-feet wide single carriageway across undulating country and it has a low accident rate, less than one injury accident per million-vehicle miles. Major restrictions would not therefore be justified, particularly since.


as I have already mentioned, the motorway will in due course reduce the amount of traffic using this road. None the less there are two points at which the rate of accidents has been somewhat higher than the average for this part of A5. At Ivetsey Bank, as my hon. Friend said, on the eastern approach to Weston-under-Lizard the rate is 2·4 injury accidents per million-vehicle miles, and at a double bend on the western boundary of Weston-under-Lizard near the junction with the B5314 the figure is three injury accidents per million-vehicle miles.
As a result of the examination which has been carried out following the action of my hon. Friend in drawing these accident figures to the Secretary of State's attention, I am pleased to be able to inform him that we are presently discussing with the Department's agent authority—Staffordshire County Council—the possibility of carrying out small improvements at these points. I must, however, stress that at this stage I certainly cannot promise a full-scale bypass of Weston-under-Lizard. We appreciate that there are problems, however, and we are discussing with the agent authority the possibility of these improvements.
I must make clear that I cannot give any commitment that improvements to these stretches of the A5 will necessarily find a place in the Department's programme, given first of all that there are numerous priority schemes which have to be fitted into the programme in the light of available funds. As my hon. Friend will know, the cuts in Government expenditure announced earlier this week by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer have necessitated and are necessitating a comprehensive reexamination of the programme, and the results of this are awaited. It will be a little time yet before my right hon. and learned Friend can tell the House what those results are.
In the meantime, to avoid the risk of accidents at the A5/B5314 junction west of Weston-under-Lizard, northbound traffic is prohibited from turning right and has to proceed about half a mile to the A41 roundabout and then northwards on A41. Arrangements are also being made to provide more permanent signs for southbound traffic on B5314 to give greater warning of the A5 junction; the existing "Give way" sign at the junc

tion will also be repositioned. I hope my hon. Friend will accept that these measures are intended to ensure that close consideration is given to possible methods of reducing risk of accidents which has properly caused him concern.
I should like now to turn to the important point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock both in meetings and in correspondence and also tonight by my hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin about which methods we might adopt to ensure that the Secretary of State's undertaking to examine reasonably practicable measures for alleviating the damaging effects of the motorway on the environment is carried out successfully.
The House will recall that the main grounds of objection to the southern route were that the motorway would intrude into attractive unspoilt countryside, particularly in the vicinity of Tong, Cod-sail Wood and Chillington, and that certain buildings of historical interest, including the listed Grecian Temple at Chillington Hall, would be too close to the route. My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State is also aware of the strong local feeling that exists and also that a number of local residents and other interested individuals and organisations may wish to make observations about what could be done to ameliorate possible damage to the environment in this area.
To that end my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State has decided that the environmental treatment of the road and the various remedial measures which can be adopted should be matters on which informed public comment should be sought. I hope that in that way I can immediately respond to the most helpful suggestions which my hon. Friend has made.
My right hon. and learned Friend hopes to achieve that by seeking the participation of the public in the detailed landscape and environmental treatment to be accorded to the route, as a result of the inspector's recommendations and his own undertakings set out in his decision letter. He proposes to undertake an informal exercise to seek the public's views on methods of alleviating the environmental impact of the chosen southern route. He proposes to appoint


an eminent landscape architect as a consultant to examine alternative environmental treatment prepared by the Department for the M54, based on the suggestions put forward at the public inquiry. These will be exhibited by means of display of photographs, plans and possibly models so that the intention of the proposals may be readily understood by interested laymen.
The landscape architect consultant, who is yet to be selected, will be asked to attend these exhibitions and to meet by appointment members of the public who wish to make a genuine contribution to the proposals. Although the time and place of these exhibitions remains to be fixed, I can assure my hon. Friend that officials of the Department of the Environment will be present to answer queries and discuss and record comments made by interested parties. In due course the landscape architect consultant will be asked to correlate all comments made with his own findings and submit an integrated report direct to my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State. It is expected that in his report the consultant will not only refer to the relative importance of various measures and alternatives proposed but will also express a view on the intrinsic value for money represented by the alternative put forward.
Following receipt of this report the Secretary of State will decide which proposals he feels should be incorporated into the scheme, and this could lead in due course to the need for further compulsory purchase orders and possible modifications to the side road orders being necessary in order to ensure successful overall landscape treatment. If it were to become necessary the Secretary of State would consider holding a joint inquiry into the proposals.
I hope that my Department will be in a position to give more details regarding the proposed exhibitions in the near future, although I must stress that whatever is decided must depend very much on the availability of resources following the inevitable re-examination of the trunk road programme in the light of cuts in Government expenditure.
We have taken this decision because of the sensitivity of the M54 scheme and

in the light of particular recommendations by the inspector at the inquiry held in July 1972, and not least by the representations that my hon. Friends have been making and their most helpful, positive and constructive suggestions. But we accept that other special cases may arise from time to time which might merit similar treatment because of their special sensitivity. I must make it clear that such cases must be considered on their merits in the light of the economic and other considerations pertaining at the time.
My hon. Friend has invited me to see his constituents and visit the area. I certainly accept his invitation. It might be more appropriate for me to visit his constituency in my ministerial capacity when the exhibition is over and we have received the recommendations of the landscape architect, but with that caveat I should like publicly to accept my hon. Friend's invitation.
I hope that what I have announced to the House tonight on behalf of the Secretary of State will go some way to reassure my hon. Friends of our serious concern to ameliorate as far as possible the environmental damage that might result from proceeding with the M54 on the line chosen. As I have said, it may well be, and probably will be, that similar treatment will be required with other motorways from time to time, in very sensitive schemes.
This is a significant step forward when taken into account with the earlier participation, the booklet it has issued, the major provisions of the Land Compensation Act, and the new sensitivity to environmental treatment. I think that I can claim that this Government are treating the public properly and taking them into their confidence more than any other previous Government did. In constructing motorways we must inevitably disrupt the lives of many people. We intend to show the world that we really care about people and are sensitive to their feelings.

Mr. Cormack: I thank my hon. Friend very much for what he said. It was a most constructive speech.

Dr. Trafford: May I make it clear to my hon. Friend that The Wrekin would also like to see him? When he visits


my hon. Friend's constituency I hope that he will step over the border into Shropshire and look at the other end of the M54.

Mr. Speed: I thank both my hon. Friends. I shall be delighted to visit not

only Cannock but The Wrekin—perhaps one in the morning and one in the afternoon.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at sixteen minutes to Two o'clock.

SECOND READING COMMITTEE

Wednesday 19th December 1973

[SIR RONALD RUSSELL in the Chair)

The Committee consisted of the following Members:


Benyon, Mr. W. (Buckingham)
McBride, Mr. Neil (Swansea, East)


Coombs, Mr. Derek (Birmingham, Yardley)
Mawby, Mr. Ray (Totnes)



Mudd, Mr. David (Falmouth and Camborne)


Dormand, Mr. J. D. (Easington)



Eyre, Mr. Reginald (Under-Secretary of State for the Environment)
Oakes, Mr. Gordon (Widnes)



Owen, Mr. Idris (Stockport, North)


Fisher, Mrs. Doris (Birmingham, Ladywood)
Reed, Mr. Laurance (Bolton, East)



Rhodes, Mr. Geoffrey (Newcastle-upon-Tyne, East)


Freeson, Mr. Reginald (Willesden, East)



Hawkins, Mr. Paul (Norfolk, South-West)
Stott, Mr. Roger (Westhoughton)


Hunt, Mr. John (Bromley)
Tebbit, Mr. Norman (Epping)


Jones, Mr. Arthur (Northants, South)
White, Mr. James (Glasgow, Pollok)


Latham, Mr. Arthur (Paddington, North)




Miss A. Milner-Barry, Committee Clerk.

INTERNATIONAL ORGANISATIONS (LAND) BILL

10.30 a.m.

Resolved,
That if the proceedings on the International Organisations (Land) Bill are not completed at this day's sitting the Committee do meet on Wednesday 16th January at half-past Ten o'clock.—[Mr. Eyre.]

The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Reginald Eyre): I beg to move,
That the Chairman do now report to the House that the Committee recommend that the International Organisations (Land) Bill ought to be read a second time.
This is a short Bill which is useful and non-controversial. As we all know, international co-operation in many fields has increased significantly in recent years. This has resulted in the establishment of

numerous organisations with international membership. The United Kingdom has an important contribution to make in this sphere, and the Government wish to encourage the establishment in this country of the headquarters of some of these organisations.

Under existing legislation—in particular, the Commissioners of Works Act 1852 and the Town and Country Planning Acts—the Secretary of State for the Environment is enabled to acquire land and accommodation for the public service, either by agreement or by compulsion. However, the term "public service" cannot be construed as covering international organisations. The purpose of the Bill is therefore to extend


the Secretary of State's powers to acquire land and premises for the use of international organisations, both those to which the United Kingdom already belongs, and those of which it is to become a member. Clause 1 so provides.

In case the Government should wish to offer an international organisation accommodation in Northern Ireland, the Bill confers on the Ministry of Finance for Northern Ireland, where the Town and Country Planning Acts do not apply, powers of acquisition similar to those conferred on the Secretary of State for the Environment.

The practical effect of the Bill will be that the Secretary of State for the Environment will be able to provide, either by leasing or purchase, offices and a full range of other installations—for example, laboratories, conference facilities, and so on—which may be required by an international organisation. Provision of domestic accommodation is not specifically excluded, but this would not normally be offered.

Property purchased under this Bill would normally remain Crown property. There is, however, no reason why it could not be sold to an international organisation legally entitled to hold land.

The powers conferred by this Bill are not likely to be used frequently. Most European institutions, for example, are already well established. However, the Government need to be in a position to offer accommodation where appropriate, particularly where a new organisation is to be established and it is thought desirable to have its headquarters in this country. Compulsory powers of acquisition would very rarely need to be exercised, but it is desirable to have them in reserve.

It is not possible to forecast precisely the effects of this Bill on public expenditure, but they will be small. The amount of expenditure will in each case depend on whether the full costs are to be recovered from the organisation concerned, and on the location and size of the accommodation required.

Any financial arrangements that the Government might wish to offer to an international organisation would need to be justified in the usual way by the relevant Department.

Members of this Committee will be glad to hear that the Bill will have a negligible effect on public service manpower.

Mr. Idris Owen: May I ask my hon. Friend a question——

10.35 a.m.

Mr. Reginald Freeson: Perhaps a number of us will be asking questions, however non-controversial the Bill may be.
I first express some mild surprise that no indication was given in the Minister's remarks about cases which have given rise to concern to pass the Bill. I am not discussing the merits or demerits of the ways in which either Governments or international organisations have to meet their needs for offices and other facilities in this country. But I should have thought, from experience and from reports that one has read, that there would be no difficulty for Governments or international organisations to obtain premises and facilities in London or elsewhere. Indeed, we know that recently, as the Minister indicated, there has been considerable growth in "settlement" in this country due to membership of the EEC and encouraged by Britain's recent adherence to the treaties.
If there has been no difficulty for international organisations to make their own arrangements up to now, whether they be recognised government organisations or commercial bodies, why do the Government feel that there is likely to be difficulty in future? What kind of case material has the Department in its records or from other Departments which has led to the introduction of the Bill? It would be useful for members of the Committee to know the Government's experience in this matter.
I should like to put one or two other points to the Minister arising from his remarks, accepting that there is a need for the Bill supported by whatever information the Minister may provide. Why is it not possible for the Government, whether the Bill is before us or not, to make use of lands and facilities they already have at their disposal for the use of government or international organisations?
I have in mind the stark, staring illustration across the road—I am not making a party point, because it has been


the responsibility of successive Governments—of the Broad Sanctuary site which has stood empty since the old Westminster Hospital was demolished. It was allocated, God bless its memory, for a new Colonial Office 25 years ago. Subsequently it went out to international or Commonwealth architectural competition for a conference and office complex which was urgently needed in the middle fifties. It was shelved again and turned over to National Car Parks and since then it has been a rather wasteful eyesore, to put it mildly, considering the site and its position.
Why cannot that site be put to use? Why cannot other sites, which I shall not bother to elaborate upon, which are already in the ownership of the Government be put to use, with or without the need for the Bill? I do not know whether it would require legislation to use such facilities in this way. I may sound a little lighthearted when I refer to Broad Sanctuary, but underlying it is a serious point which has been worrying me and other hon. Members for a long time for a number of reasons going well beyond the matter of waste of resources.
I turn to one other question which at least one of my hon. Friends is tempted to raise on a point of order. The Bill refers in Clause 1(2)(a) to the Commissioners of Works Act 1852. It has been difficult—virtually impossible—to obtain a copy of that Act in the Library for reference purposes. One of my hon. Friends may wish to pursue that point.
But, since it has been difficult to refer to the legislation mentioned in the subsection, we should like to know what the Commissioners of Works Act 1852 says, and if possible to have a copy of the said Act before the Committee for reference purposes.
May I take the opportunity, perhaps a little light-heartedly, but nevertheless seriously following on from what I said about the Broad Sanctuary site, to refer to that old chestnut, as it is now, Centre Point. It is about one and a half years since certain undertakings were given to the House and to the country about legislation to deal with Centre Point. One and a half years ago, the Government gave an undertaking that if that building was not let "within a matter of months" action

would be taken by the Government to ensure that it was let.
We know, although it was never officially stated, that legislation was drafted in the Department to that end. Options were left open as to how it should be handled. The option which most people assumed would be adopted from the style of the dialogue embarked upon by the then Secretary of State was either to take management powers into the hands of a Government Department or for the Government to empower a local authority to act on their behalf.
Since then, we have waited and waited, and what has surfaced is a proposal, not to deal with matters such as Centre Point—and there are other buildings but Centre Point is the most notable example—but to allow an increase in the rates charge on empty properties in the Local Government Bill. Do the Government intend to take such action? If they do so, it will enable the Government to use such empty properties for the very purposes for which this Bill is drafter. Why not take over Centre Point, Space House and other buildings at appropriate valuations to use for the public service? Those valuations would not be at £48 million, at which the building is at present valued——

Mr. Arthur Jones: I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman would tell us what he considers to be an appropriate valuation?

Mr. Freeson: I shall be delighted to do so if I am not out of order. There are various broad principles on which one can assess an appropriate valuation. I shall try to be moderate since we are asking the Conservative Government to do it. In the first instance, I shall not quote what I would do.
If a building is erected at a cost of £5 million in 1965, and is valued at £25 million by the time the Government or their spokesmen describe it as an obscenity, an insult and a scandal—words used by the Government spokesman 18 months ago—one would expect the Government to use their existing powers, this Bill or other appropriate legislation, to take over that and other buildings at that valuation, and not the valuation reported in the financial columns and property columns today of £48 million. What was announced two days ago in the


House by the Chancellor of the Exchequer will not affect that—not one scrap. So that is one answer—a very moderate one from the point of view of the Conservative Party.
My own answer would be more in line with the suggestion made by the then Secretary of State—not in the House but in an exchange he had at a luncheon party—that if the owner of Centre Point and similar buildings did not feel able to undertake the lettings despite their being on the market for so many years, the Government would be happy to take them over at the building cost. It may have been a slip of the intellectual tongue for a Conservative Secretary of State to have said that, but he did say it.
May I translate what the right hon. Gentleman said into Labour Party policy terms? Taking the building over at the then existing use value means the 1965 value. I hope that that helps the Minister, because he spoke about the need not unduly to increase public expenditure. In fact, there would be a marginal increase. I throw this out as a suggestion. Let the Minister adopt the proposal of the then Secretary of State for the Environment and take over such buildings as Centre Point at the cost it took to build them.
May I underline that point by asking a question? If it is appropriate for the Government to introduce this non-controversial Bill to enable them to purchase and lease buildings and properties for international bodies, why should it not be appropriate for the Government to seek similar, simple powers to take over, purchase or lease buildings and properties for other public services and community needs in this country, going well beyond the public service powers they have now, perhaps extending the powers already in the New Towns Acts in the areas designated for new town purposes?
This country and its cities are in dire need of Government action, whether it be for the provision of facilities for international bodies, Government or otherwise, the provision of essential Government services, or the provision of various local government services. It is time that the Government took powers to meet those needs urgently instead of confining themselves to a simple Bill to assist international bodies which seem to be well able to take care of themselves;

and we have had no evidence that they will experience future difficulty.

10.48 a.m.

Mr. David Mudd: I hope that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State will allow me to express two brief reservations and one hope about the admirable way in which he presented his case. My first reservation concerns his use of the words "normally", "not normally" and "only rarely" too often in a 700-word opening speech. They stuck out rather like fairy lights in a power crisis, and I fear that "not normal" and "rarities" tend to become the rule rather than the exception as legislation is enacted.
My second reservation is a basic one concerning this or any future Government seeking to extend their powers of intervention in land matters acquiring land and holding land for any purpose whatsoever, particularly as the agents for any international organisation.
My hope is that my hon. Friend will be able to consider at some other stage the question of the disposal cost of land so acquired, because it seems to me that the costs should be fully recoverable from any international organisation benefiting from the powers which the Government seek. In the event of there being any difference between the cost of acquisition and the cost of subsequent disposal, the ultimate beneficiary should pay the higher of the two prevailing prices. The cost should not fall upon the public account.

10.50 a.m.

Mr. J. D. Dormand: The Minister said that this was a non-controversial Bill. With his usual disarming and charming manner, he makes everything sound non-controversial. But his introductory speech could not have been better designed to raise suspicions and therefore raise controversy.
The first question I need to ask—this is a repetition of what my hon. Friend the Member for Willesden, East (Mr. Freeson) said, but it seems to me crucial to this matter—is why have the Bill? The Minister certainly did not give a reason for it in his introductory speech. Even in what is described as a limited measure, such as this, one does not simply pluck things out of the air.


There must be some motive for introducing it, and perhaps the Minister will tell us about it later.
Having said that, I welcome the Bill. In these days of internationalism, buildings of this kind lend status. One immediately thinks of Luxembourg, the so-called postage stamp State which has achieved considerable status, and rightly so, because of its international buildings, its organisations and the activity that goes on in that country.
I should like to know whether "international" includes EEC organisations because, as is well known, many Opposition Members have certain reservations about the EEC, from many viewpoints. We should not like to be placed in a position where other action would have to be taken, on the return of the Labour Government, on buildings that were becoming established.

Mr. Arthur Latham: Some hon. Members opposite also have reservations.

Mr. Dormand: Yes.
Would the Minister in addition tell us something about the location of these buildings? Those of us who come from the North-East think there is no reason why they should not be placed in the regions. The usual argument against that suggestion is that they would be too far from London and the central Government. I think that that is now an old chestnut, particularly with the excellent modern communications in and to the North-East. There is a new town in my area, Peterlee, and I have been making inquiries about the location of Government buildings there since I became a Member in 1970, without any fruit being picked. Developing new towns, especially those that have had little opportunity to develop on this type of scale, should be fully considered in this matter.
That leads me to ask a supplementary question. If the Bill is enacted, will the House as a whole, or any subsequent committee, have the opportunity of dealing with the question of the location, whether it be London, Birmingham, Easington or elsewhere? That is of some importance. The Bill states that it will have a negligible effect on public service manpower and we accept that, but it

seems to me that in all these buildings there will be many unskilled jobs. I refer to porters, cleaners, attendants, and so on, who in a constituency such as mine would make a valuable contribution to solving the local labour problem. From that point of view, the subject is important.
Finally, and further to my first question to the Minister, have the Government in mind to establish the international Population Institute in this country? I have asked questions about this matter for two years and had a little carrot thrown to me on two occasions that the institute might be established here. The Government's announcement yesterday that a Minister is to be given special responsibility for the population gives added weight and urgency to the proposal. I believe that it would be a most welcome organisation in this country.

10.55 a.m.

Mr. Idris Owen: I wished to intervene earlier purely on a matter of clarification. Subsequent speakers have asked nearly all the questions I had in mind to ask.
I am not clear what an international organisation means. What is the qualification for an international organisation? The Mafia is an international organisation, and so is FIFA. Perhaps my hon. Friend will give a further explanation about what he has in mind. For example, if a branch office of the EEC were to be established to deal with regional development that would be exciting. Will my hon. Friend indicate what difficulties the Government have experienced in the past 30 years as a result of not having had the advantage of the Bill being on the Statute Book?

10.57 a.m.

Mr. Arthur Latham: You may be able to assist me, Sir Ronald, because I am in extreme difficulty in serving as a member of the Committee and in making comments on the Bill. I have two problems. I served for 57 sittings with the Minister's predecessor on the Committee stage of the Housing and Finance Bill. In those days we would enter a very dark room and the Minister's predecessor would cast light upon the situation, sometimes artificial, sometimes coloured and interesting light,


and the gloomy room became interesting and entertaining. Today, however, I must say frankly that I could have written the Minister's speech—and I know nothing about the Bill. I am no better informed now than when I came into the room.
The other difficulty is that referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Willesden, East (Mr. Freeson), namely, that of obtaining the necessary references to understand what the Bill is about. Clause 1(2) refers to three enactments. I checked Section 113 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1971 and learned that:
The Secretary of State for the Environment may acquire compulsorily any land necessary for the public service".
I turn to the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1972 and find in Section 103 that
The Secretary of State for the Environment may acquire compulsorily any land necessary for the public service".
Having looked up those two interesting references, I know no more about the purposes of the Bill or the procedures to be followed than I did before I took the trouble to look them up. There is difficulty in obtaining a copy of the Commissioners of Works Act 1852. I hope that the Minister will cast some light upon whether the appropriate section in that Act would tell me more than the other two Acts referred to in Clause 1(2).
The procedural difficulty is that having checked with the Clerk—I have not served on a Second Reading Committee before—I understand that the same rules apply as apply in the Chamber, namely, that, except by leave of the Committee, one may speak only once and that it is customary for only the Minister to seek to obtain and be given leave of the Committee so to do. With such inadequate presentation of the purposes, motives and machinery envisaged by the Bill, one is not able to put the questions one would normally address to the Minister in order to be satisfied that it would be proper for the Bill to have a Second Reading. I say that in preface to some questions that I want to ask. I ask the questions in total ignorance both of the parent legislation to which the Bill refers and of the purposes behind the introduction of the Bill at this time.
My hon. Friend the Member for Willesden, East alarmed me when he suggested that the Secretary of State might have in mind buying Centre Point for some international organisation. I do not know which international organisation might be thought appropriate, never mind the appropriate valuation. If there were an international confederation of white elephants it might be housed there. Perhaps Mr. George Thomson could bring his regional agency into Centre Point so that it could be as vacant as ever whilst occupied and thus manage to come into public ownership. It might be a conceivable engineering feat to have Centre Point moved to the North-East. Certainly, we should be glad to have it out of London.
Apart from that one suggestion that Centre Point might be in mind, there has been no serious suggestion about the type of property or organisation. The point made by the hon. Member for Stockport, North (Mr. Idris Owen) about the Mafia being an international organisation underlines how reasonable it would be to have, not merely in a statement by the Minister, but in the Bill itself, some indication of the type of international organisation for which propery might be acquired. I do not know whether Clause 1(1)(a), where it says
… institution of which the United Kingdom … is, or is to become, a member 
really means a governmental institution, or whether it could mean some other international body of which some nongovernmental agency in the United Kingdom was a member. It may be a legalistic point on which the Minister would wish to take advice to find out whether these words make this exclusively provide for governmental agencies and not other institutions which might become members of international bodies.
Secondly, when I referred to the two Acts that I was able to find there was no clear definition of what is regarded as "public service", nor do I find any indication so far as to whether the power that it is proposed the Minister should take might be used in certain circumstances for some private body which had the Government's blessing but was not strictly a part of their agencies.
As regards paragraphs (a) and (b) of Clause 1(1), where reference is made to becoming a member of an institution or


organisation, how does one apply the words:
… or is to become, a member "?
Could it be that the United Kingdom or one of its bodies might become a member, that an application is pending, and that accommodation might be acquired, or does it strictly mean that there is a treaty, and that membership has not been ratified or taken into full effect? Perhaps the Minister could clarify that point.
The broader point that I want to raise is this. I am concerned, as are a number of other hon. Members, as a member of the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, not only about the growth of executive power and the lack of parliamentary checks, but about the sometimes seemingly cursory and casual way in which Government Departments go about exercising powers which have been delegated to their Minister. What I had hoped to find in the parent enactments, but which I have not found, is guidance as to what parliamentary procedures will any action under this Bill be subject. Will it be necessary for the Minister proposing the purchase to make an order? Will that order then be subject to the affirmative or negative procedure in the House? If not, what other provision will be made for the Secretary of State, in exercising the powers conferred by the Bill, to report to Parliament on his action, to be subject to question and thus to give the House of Commons the opportunity to challenge what he does?
I could not quite follow what the hon. Member for Falmouth and Camborne (Mr. Mudd) meant, unless he had his tongue in his cheek when he said that the case had been admirably presented by the Minister in introducing the Bill. It seemed to me to be an empty case. One can hardly describe the contents as admirable or non-admirable. I want to know what should have been in the case and was not and to be told what kind of international organisations are envisaged. What has given rise to the presentation of the Bill now? Has there been a particular case in which the Government wished to take action of this kind and found that they did not have the power?
Furthermore, bearing in mind my concern about the increase of executive

power in any direction, if, as has been said, it is thought that these powers are likely to be used only infrequently, why is it not possible for the Minister to promote a Bill or take some other appropriate action to deal with an individual case as it arises, rather than ask for blanket powers that may, despite the Minister's assurances, be used more regularly and more frequently by himself or any successor than he envisages at present?
May I renew my plea not only to the Minister but to the Chair? We have not had a clear case presented and we have not heard anything we did not know before we came. May we have a clear exposition for the case, the purpose and the way in which the legislation would be exercised? Would you, Sir Ronald, be indulgent and the Minister generous, when he has presented the case, in giving way often enough for us to have satisfactory answers to the questions we shall ask when we have been told what it is all about?

11.7 a.m.

Mr. Arthur Jones: When my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary replies perhaps he would deal with one or two points that occurred to me while I listened to his introduction and the ensuing debate.
Who will hold the title to the land to be compulsorily acquired? Will it rest with Her Majesty's Government, or is it intended that the title will pass to the international organisation on whose behalf the initial decision compulsorily to acquire, or to acquire by other means, was made?
Does my hon. Friend envisage that it may be acquisition of property which will subsequently be developed, either with new structures, by conversion, improvements or extensions? This is particularly relevant with regard to who holds the title, if it will be held by an international organisation. We dealt earlier with the question of reimbursement of Government expenditure. What about the circumstances in which the land acquired is subsequently resold and where there may be additional proceeds from that sale beyond those of the original acquisition and development?
These questions are important in the context of the Bill we are asked to consider in terms of ownership or occupation by an international organisation.

11.10 a.m.

Mrs. Doris Fisher: There are two points that worry me particularly. One is the acquisition of land. We all know that there are various parts of the country where land shortage is acute. I should like to support by hon. Friend when he says that, if we are thinking of selling land to an organisation, it should be used in a very limited way. The amount of land agreed should be for the limited use of that agency or institution, and should not be used as an excuse for a speculator to move in, who may produce some grandiose scheme for offices with fountains, and so on, to increase the value of the land, use a small part of it for an international organisation, so that the rest of the property becomes liable to speculative profiteering. I should like the Minister to give an assurance that the amount of land will be strictly controlled for the particular use of the organisation or the institution.
May I also make a special plea to the Minister that, when he considers the compulsory purchase of the land, he does not take the easy way out? I refer to compulsory purchases from the local authority who has ownership of the property for some future use but which is not able to develop it because the Government, for reasons best known to themselves, have decided not to give the local authority the necessary finance with which to develop the property, whether for a health centre, a hostel for the handicapped, or whatever it may be. I should not like the Minister to have an unfair advantage over local authorities which have been accumulating land for public services in their locality.
In the event of compulsory purchase being enacted by the Government, will 1he public be able to have a dispute with the Government over the ownership of land in the same way as they are able to with a local authority Or does it mean that under the previous enactment the compulsory purchase is complete because the Government themselves, as opposed to any other body, are involved in the compulsory purchase?

11.13 a.m.

Mr. Gordon Oakes: The Minister will realise that once again there is nothing that breeds controversy as much as non-controversial legislation. Hon. Members on both sides of the Committee have rightly asked for specific answers to a number of questions on this minor, but useful Bill.
I echo the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Willesden, East (Mr. Freeson), namely, would the Government introduce an uncontroversial two-clause Bill compulsorily to acquire property for British, as well as for international needs? I assure the hon. Gentleman that there would be less controversy and discussion from the Opposition on such a Bill than there is on this Bill.
The Minister should answer questions from both sides of the Committee. First, why is it necessary to have the Bill? When a Government bring in a Bill it is usually because there has been some difficulty which can be overcome only by legislation, and when that Bill is brought in at this stage of a very busy Session, albeit in a Second Reading Committee, there must be some reason such as an inter national organisation which has been deprived of offices in this country, by agreement or other means, which necessitates this legislation.
Alternatively, is it that we have been told by international organisations, particularly EEC organisations, to harmonise our law for the acquisition of property with Community law? I do not know, but that could be the reason. There must be a reason why the Government wish to introduce the Bill at this stage of the Session.
I echo what my hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Mr. Dormand) said about where such property should be situated. I would give my hon. Friend full support if an additional sub-para-graph were to be added to Clause 2 when the Bill reaches Committee Stage, to the effect that, wherever practicable, these organisations should acquire land in the regions of this country and not in London. I think that that should be written into the Bill.
The hon. Member for Northants, South (Mr. Arthur Jones) asked how this is to be done. Is the land to be owned by the British Government and leased to the international organisations, or is it to be


acquired by the British Government and the fee simple passed to the international organisation? I can see difficulties when actual ownership of the land and buildings goes to an amorphous international body rather than to a specific owner.
Other problems of ownership arise. I believe that under other enactments, these buildings would acquire quasi-diplomatic status. Having such status, how far do the British Government's and local authorities' writs run? Can one cross the fence into the international organisation and obtain a sort of diplomatic immunity? One can think of all kinds of sinister plots for novels from a Bill such as this, with mansions in the country acquired by the Government for some international organisation being used for all sorts of nefarious purposes, much to the disgust of the villagers in the area. Seriously, what will be the diplomatic status of these buildings?
That leads me to wonder about the rights of individuals. The Bill does not specify empty properties—it merely refers to properties. Cannot a conflict arise between the owner of a property who wishes to use it for a commercial, residential or industrial purpose for this country and the Government, who can slap on a compulsory order for an international organisation? I can see a fruitful discussion in the columns of the Sunday Express on the fact that British industry and commerce were being denied the use of a building because an international organisation wanted to acquire it and the British Government were allowing a compulsory purchase order to be placed on the building.
To whom would an appeal be made against the Minister's order? I presume it would be to the court, as there would be no other source of appeal if the Minister decided to allow an order. My hon. Friend the Member for Paddington, North (Mr. Latham), who has clearly done a great deal of research on the Bill—[Laughter.]—as much research as possible though he was denied access to some of the Statutes—asked, "Will there be an order before the House? What powers have we got over the Minister?" We must not give a Secretary of State in any Government such unbridled power that the individual has no right of appeal against his decision outside, and Members of the

House cannot take him to task by parliamentary means. We need to know what will be the right of appeal of an individual objecting to the order being placed on his property.
I echo the remarks of the hon. Member for Stockport, North (Mr. Idris Owen) on the definition clause. What is the distinction between the United Kingdom and
Her Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom? 
One can understand the second one—
Her Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom is … a member "—
but one cannot understand the first one, that the United Kingdom, as such, is a member.
"To become" a member again leads to difficulty, as my hon. Friend has said. Is that just the vague intention of the Government, or have specific steps to be taken before the Bill's powers could be used? The speculations of the hon. Member for Stockport, North with regard to the Mafia are interesting and I wonder, in view of recent pronouncements, whether Her Majesty's Government are about to become members of that organisation. It could be.

Mr. Idris Owen: I was only being facetious.

Mr. Oakes: I appreciate that. So am I.

The Chairman: Order. We cannot have sedentary interruptions.

Mr. Oakes: I appreciate that, Sir Ronald.
Finally, I should like to ask a detailed question on rates. When these organisations have their buildings, will they become Crown property within the meaning of the Rating Act, or will they pay rates in the ordinary way? I hope they will pay rates in the ordinary way and not become Crown property. I do not know whether they would be Crown property, as they are required for an international organisation. If they become Crown property, as the Committee will know, there is the compounded figure fixed by the Treasury that goes to the local authority. If they are not Crown property, the buildings are rated as ordinary property and pay rates in the ordinary way.
The Opposition are not opposed to the Bill, but we should like to know why it is


necessary. We should like to know of specific instances and about the rights of the individual faced with a compulsory purchase order and about the status of that property when it has been acquired.

Mr. Mudd: Perhaps, on reconsideration, the hon. Gentleman will wish to put a further question to the Minister, namely: where land is acquired for the purpose of constructing offices for an international organisation, would the fact that such a purchase was brought about by the Government obviate any necessity for conformation with planning requirements?

Mr. Oakes: That is a very valid point, because the Government have many powers to obviate the ordinary planning process. The Committee is indebted to the hon. Gentleman for raising that issue, and doubtless the Minister will consider it, because a monstrosity could arise in an area where the local planning authority has no control over it whatsoever. As I said, that is a very valid point and I hope that the Minister will answer it when he replies.

11.22 a.m.

Mr. Eyre: I should like to reply to the many interesting points that have been raised during this debate on what has been referred to many times by hon. Members on both sides of the Committee as a non-controversial Bill.
The hon. Member for Willesden, East (Mr. Freeson) said that no cases of specific difficulty had been quoted which appear to him to justify the introduction of the Bill. He then asked why, if there had been no difficulty to date, there should be provision now. I remind the hon. Gentleman that the Government have been interested, in the national interest, in attracting to this country the headquarters of international organisations. He will remember that the Government were interested in trying to get the headquarters of the European Patent Office in this country, but eventually it was decided that it should go to Munich.
A more recent matter concerned the European Medium Range Weather Forecasting Centre. The Government were successful in making arrangements for the headquarters of that centre to be established at Shinfield Park near Reading.

The hon. Gentleman is quite right to ask why no difficulties were heard of on that occasion. No legal difficulties arose because the Ministry of Defence, which administers the United Kingdom Meteorological Service, had a site already in Crown ownership which was made available. The United Kingdom share of the cost of establishing that organisation was taken by the Ministry of Defence within the defence budget. In that case the availability of Crown land with an entirely suitable site meant that the Government were able, without difficulty, to accommodate this international organisation, which was to the advantage of this country.
Looking ahead, there is only one case in the pipeline to which we should like to give assistance in this country, and that is to bring about the establishment within the United Kingdom of the European Trade Mark Office. The Government think it important that the general principle should be that some of the major institutions, of, for example, the European Economic Community should be located in the United Kingdom. The Government's decision to propose that the European Trade Mark Office be sited in London was reported in HANSARD on 12th July at col. 432. The decision was taken in the light of the Community's decision to establish the European Patent Office in Munich which, as hon. Members will recall, caused considerable disappointment in United Kingdom trade circles.
The establishment in London of the European Trade Mark Office would ensure the retention in this country of a substantial amount of professional work by trade mark agents and barristers, and would help to stop the drift to the Continent of professional and commercial work on industrial property. The United Kingdom's dominant commercial position in trade marks would not be helped if the Trade Mark Office were located elsewhere. About 60 per cent. of the applications which come before the office are likely to be in English. In these circumstances, the presence of the office in London would be welcome to British industry and would bring employment and balance of payments advantages. The bringing of employment and balance of payments advantages are considerations which this or any other Government of this country would want to bear strongly


in mind in all matters of the kind of which I have given two recent examples.

Mr. Freeson: Accepting all that has been said about the loss of the Patent Office in Munich and the prospect of the Trade Mark Office coming to Britain, what are the difficulties in bringing that institution to Britain which this Bill needs to obviate? We were not told of any difficulties. That was the point of my question.

Mr. Eyre: The Government, or any other Government, would seek to be in a position to deal efficiently and promptly with any need to provide premises and facilities.
Let me return to a point that the hon. Member for Willesden, East made in his opening speech. He asked why not make use of land and facilities now at the disposal of the Government. I agree. That is perfectly right and proper. Indeed, the Government did that in the case of Shinfield Park. The answer to the hon. Gentleman's question is that the land and premises now in Government ownership may not always be suitable.
Of course, the Government would wish to make the best use of all assets now in their possession. A great deal of time and effort is given by this Government, and will be given by successive Governments, to that end. But in a case which has yet to come forward at some time in the future there may be circumstances in which it would be a distinct advantage to this country for the Government to be able to act promptly and effectively to provide premises and facilities.

Mr. Latham: The Minister has not answered the question. The question is not whether it is desirable to have particular offices here, or what facilities should be available, but why the Government have to make the provision. There are many other international organisations, and certainly international companies, which are capable of making their own arrangements for accommodation and purchase of lands. There are a number housed in this country already which have not needed Government assistance or Government intervention. Why do we have to make legislative change so that the Government them

selves make the acquisition rather than act as agents or grant facilities or merely expedite the normal business process?

Mr. Eyre: The hon. Gentleman is further emphasising a question which he raised in his speech. The powers under the Bill when enacted would not be available to private organisations. The powers would be available only in the case of an—
international organisation or institution of which the United Kingdom, or Her Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom, is, or is to become a member "—
at some time in the future. It would relate only to bodies of which the country or the Government were members. The hon. Gentleman will appreciate that the wide-ranging considerations that I mentioned, which are connected with the wellbeing and prosperity of the country's trading activities and major interests, would all have to be borne in mind in the decision whether the Government would assist in the provision of premises and facilities.
May I give an example of the difference between the forms of membership that I have mentioned. For example, the United Kingdom is a member of the European Economic Community, but Her Majesty's Government are members of the International Maritime Consultative Organisation and similar organisations which exist to provide services for the general benefit of the population of the countries whose Governments are members of such organisations.

Mr. Latham: I apologise because the responsibility rests with the communicator rather than the person communicated with, but I have not communicated my question clearly. I shall try to put it simply and illustratively. What is to stop the commission in Brussels, if it wishes, borrowing or renting Centre Point from Harry Hyams without the need for legislation of this kind, which would make the Government the agents?

Mr. Eyre: I am not aware of any difficulty which would prevent the Brussels organisation from acting in the way the hon. Gentleman mentioned. But I emphasise that the European Trade Mark Office is an example of where the Government in this country wish to take a view in a helpful way and at present they do not have the power so to act. The


Bill extends the Government's power so that they can act effectively if they decide that it is in the national interest to assist in the provision of premises.
The hon. Member for Willesden, East raised the question of the Commissioners of Works Act 1852. I am sorry to hear that a copy of the Act was not available and I shall do everything I can to make a copy available for the hon. Gentleman. I shall read the important part of Section 2 of the Act:
It shall be lawful for the Commissioners of Her Majesty's Works and Public Buildings to purchase, take, or accept any Hereditaments, of what Tenure soever, necessary for the Public Service, and to sell or exchange the same, and to give a good Discharge for the Purchase Money thereof to any Purchaser or other Person and to grant any Lease or Leases, Underlease or Underleases of any such Hereditaments so taken as aforesaid, and to enter into any Agreements for such Sale, Exchange, Lease or Underlease, so nevertheless that all such Hereditaments shall be purchased, taken, exchanged, sold, or leased, and the Produce and Income thereof applied, by the Direction of the Commissioners of Her Majesty's Treasury, and so as every Conveyance of any Freehold Hereditaments in England, Wales, or Ireland, made to or by the said Commissioners of Her Majesty's Works and Public Buildings under the Authority of this Act, be enrolled amongst the Records of the Court of Exchequer in England or Ireland, as the Case may be; and all Acts by this Act authorised to be done by the Commissioners of Her Majesty's Works and Public Buildings, and all and every the Powers and Authorities whatsoever by the Act passed in the Session of Parliament holden in the Third and Fourth Years of the Reign of His late Majesty King William the Fourth, Chapter Forty-three, and vested in or transferred to the Commissioners … for the Time being of Her Majesty's Works and Public Buildings, or by any Two of the said Commissioners.
I hope that that has helped the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Freeson: I thank the Minister for his rendering of that proclamation, although it deteriorated a little towards the end. I listened to it carefully, and it underlines the comment I want to make on a matter which arose earlier. What we are doing in the Bill is extending the potential of Crown-held property. Several questions were raised in that context—for example, powers under planing. I hope that the Minister will be in a position not only to clarify the situation but to satisfy us on the queries that arose on the assumption that this was to be Crown-held land. The quotation

just given confirms that that will be the legal position.

Mr. Eyre: I shall continue to meet the points raised by the hon. Gentleman, because he went on to Centre Point. He has, I am sure, studied the Chancellor's statements in respect of the taxation position. He will be aware, too, that in discussing the Local Government Bill consideration is to be given concerning the rating position. The hon. Gentleman suggested that Centre Point and other buildings should be used for international purposes. He is perfectly entitled to make such a suggestion, and it will be considered.

Mr. Freeson: The Minister has misunderstood. I do not want to accuse him of being obtuse, but perhaps he his misunderstood. The Chancellor's statement has no relevance to the situation obtaining over Centre Point. I could pursue that matter if necessary, but I shall not do so now. The property market is well aware that it has no connection.
Regarding Centre Point being taken for this purpose, I was not recommending it. I said that an announcement had been made by the Secretary of State for the Environment 1½ years ago that Centre Point and similar empty blocks of offices were to be taken over by the Government if they were not let in a matter of months. As we have heard nothing since about that statement of policy and intention, I suggested that here was an opportunity to resurrect that proposal to facilitate the purposes of the Bill. What are the Government's intentions in respect of the take-over of empty office blocks of this kind, in the light of statements made by the Government 1½ years ago?

Mr. Eyre: As I have said, the hon. Gentleman should have regard to the Chancellor's statement in the context of property development. His view about the consequences of that statement must be refuted. The hon. Gentleman knows that this is a controversial matter, and he would naturally not expect me to accept his view. Furthermore, this matter is being considered in detail in Committee on the Local Government Bill—that is relevant. The hon. Gentleman would not expect me to go out of order in respect of the contents of this Bill further


than to say that his valid point within the terms of the Bill, that offices of this kind could be considered for use for international purposes, is a suggestion which will be considered.

Mr. Freeson: I must press the Minister a little further. Whatever differing views we may have, there can be no doubt about what the Secretary of State for the Environment said If years ago; and there was no doubt about the kind of information which was "leaked" from the Department into political and journalistic circles in the weeks that followed that statement about the ideas that were being considered, and the kind of draft legislation that was being prepared.
I was glad to hear the Minister say that the possibility of the Government taking over Centre Point and other buildings of that kind which are standing empty will be seriously considered. I must press the point that it is now 1½ years since the Government made that announcement and it should not now be a question of merely considering the matter. Parliament and the public are entitled to know the Government's intentions.

Mr. Eyre: I have tried as fairly as I can to answer the hon. Gentleman's question in so far as it relates to the Bill under consideration.
I pass to the points raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Falmouth and Camborne (Mr. Mudd). I am glad that he accepted my assurance that the powers assumed under the Act would be used on a small scale.
He asked about the expense arising on the public account. I have tried to emphasise that decisions in that respect would depend upon the interests of this country. For example, if it were thought to be desirable to attract the headquarters of an international organisation it could well be that this, or any Government, would wish to act helpfully and to assist that process. Subsequently, the property purchased under the Bill would normally remain Crown property, but, as I said in opening, there is no reason why it could not be sold to an international organisation which was legally entitled to hold land, if it were decided by the Government that that would benefit this country's interests.
On the matter raised by the hon. Member for Easington (Mr. Dormand), I hope I have clarified the purpose of the Bill. Earlier the hon. Member argued strongly that regional considerations should be taken into account with regard to the siting of any premises which might be acquired on behalf of international organisations.
As the hon. Gentleman knows, I have a good deal of sympathy with his views and certainly those considerations would be borne in mind. As he will understand from the circumstances which I described in general terms, there would have to be detailed negotiations and considerations with regard to the siting of such headquarters. International agreement would have to be reached as to the suitability of siting. But the possibility mentioned by the hon. Gentleman of a site being acquired in the regions will certainly be borne in mind.
My hon. Friend the Member for Stockport, North (Mr. Idris Owen) mentioned the Mafia. I hasten to enlighten him on that subject, but, on the serious point he then made, I have given examples of the kind of international organisation to which I am referring, one of which the country itself is a member, and another of which the Government of the United Kingdom is a member.
The hon. Member for Paddington, North (Mr. Latham) I hope also found some benefit from my reading of the relevant section of the Commissioners of Works Act 1852. He confessed, in the course of his speech, that he was alarmed by the suggestion made by his hon. Friend the Member for Willesden, East. I noted that there was support for this view on the Government benches. He raised a question of the interpretation of Clause 1(1) relating to the membership of the international organisation. I wish to assure him that it could apply only to an organisation of which
the United Kingdom, or Her Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom, is … a member".
The hon. Gentleman also questioned the use of the words "is to become". I should like to explain that that refers to the future—that is, that the Government or the country is to become a member of such an organisation at some time in the future.

Mr. Latham: With great respect, I did understand that "is to become" was in the future tense. But I am asking, not what the simple words "is to become" mean, but what "is to become" is intended to mean in interpreting the subsection. Does this mean organisations of which we are likely to become members, is there some specific proposal? Is there a date on which membership becomes operative? That is what is being asked, not the simple, linguistic definition of the words. We know that they mean in the future.

Mr. Eyre: I was only trying to deal with what I thought the hon. Gentleman asked, and I listened carefully to what he said. I was trying to tell him what the full meaning was. I want to emphasise that any future decision would be subject to Government consideration and decision and review by Parliament.

Mr. Latham: Why does it have to say "is to become"? Once the United Kingdom, or Her Majesty's Government, is a member, the Bill as proposed will apply, because by the time Britain is a member, the Bill is operative. So the necessity for the words "is to become" cannot be explained by saying that it is because some time in the future Britain might become a member. By the time Britain becomes a member within the meaning of the Bill Britain is then a member.

Mr. Eyre: I think the hon. Gentleman will understand that in the complicated circumstances that I have tried to describe it could well be that some organisation may come into existence of which this country is to become a member. It could well be in the interests of this country for the Government to assist in the provision of premises for that purpose. The Bill so provides.
As I have said, any decision made by the Government would be subject to question and debate and to the approval of Parliament, as are all executive acts of a Government of a similar nature.
My hon. Friend the Member for Northants, South (Mr. Arthur Jones) raised the question of title. I should like to repeat what I said earlier and say that property purchased under the Bill would normally remain Crown property. However, there is no reason

why it should not be sold to an international organisation legally entitled to hold land. I stressed that in making these decisions the Government would bear very much in mind the national interest. With that interest in mind, questions relating to acquisition and disposal would be subject to conditions applying at the time of the transaction. So the desirability of acquisition in the national interest, or the benefit to the country which could be obtained by acquisition and retention of a site, or, perhaps, in certain circumstances and on certain terms the disposal of a site, would all have to be judged against the background of the circumstances applying to the particular transaction.

Mr. Jones: I also raised the question of building operations and site development. Having agreed that, in the public interest, a site or property should be disposed of to an international organisation, would my hon. Friend deal with the point about the proceeds of a possible subsequent sale, which might show a considerable profit to that organisation?

Mr. Eyre: As the property would have been vested in the Crown and would be Crown property, then of course the proceeds of sale would belong to the Crown.

Mr. Jones: In the event that the freehold had been transferred to the international organisation, what would then be the result in a subsequent sale?

Mr. Eyre: Then the property would have passed outside the ownership of the Crown and the position would be the same as for other properties held by international organisations.
The hon. Lady, the Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Mrs. Doris Fisher) asked for an assurance that the Bill does not relate to private bodies and I give her that assurance. She then mentioned problems with regard to land held by local authorities which wished to retain the land for a local purpose. Certainly all the factors that she mentioned would be borne very much in mind in any possible acquisition under the Bill. I confirm that the usual procedure on acquisition would apply. In other words, if there were objections, a public inquiry would follow.

Mr. Latham: It is important to know what the parliamentary procedures will be under this legislation. I specifically asked whether these would be dealt with by Statutory Instrument and whether they would be subject to the affirmative or negative procedure. The references here are so inadequate, the Bill is so thin, that it is difficult to know what the procedures will be. As it involves taking executive power, we ought to be told.
There is an argument going on with the Department at present as to whether, within the order, it should be specified for which purpose the land has been purchased. The same problem may occur here. If there is to be an order—subject to whichever procedure it is—may we know whether it will be required that, in such an order, the purpose for which a property is acquired has to be stipulated, or would the Minister, under these powers, be able simply to acquire a property, albeit for one purpose, and use it for another?

Mr. Eyre: I want to emphasise that, in replying to the hon. Gentleman, I made it clear that any acquisitions would be subject to the usual procedures—a parliamentary review, by Questions, or debate. That would be entirely appropriate in these circumstances and would afford every reasonable protection.

Mr. Oakes: Debate on what? I appreciate that one can ask a question of the Minister on any subject, but debate on what? Is it to be debate by prayer on a negative resolution, or debate on an Order in Council to be approved by both Houses? The hon. Gentleman surely does not mean an Adjournment debate or something like that. I think my hon. Friend the Member for Paddington, North (Mr. Latham) means debate in such a way that Parliament has control over what the Minister has done.

Mr. Eyre: As the hon. Gentleman knows, Parliament has in its general power control over the acts of the executive. These are matters in which the Government at present have considerable power for the acquisition of premises and property in the United Kingdom for the public service. Many thousands of transactions are dealt with in accordance with the established procedure, and whenever there is difficulty in a particular case of that kind there are many ways,

in accordance with parliamentary procedure, in which the matter can be raised, questioned and debated. That procedure would equally apply to any matter raised under this Bill.

Mr. Latham: I apologise to any member of the Committee who may be impatient with me for pursuing this matter, but it is not only an important matter in relation to the Bill, but involves the very wide principle about how far executive powers are to be extended and what safeguards exist for the use of those executive powers. I insist that the Minister ought to be able to give us something more than a vague answer such as that one might ask a question or initiate an Adjournment debate or there might be an official Opposition debate or something of that kind.
Specific and precise procedures are laid down for the exercise of executive powers. Sometimes they require affirmative approval by the House, sometimes they are subject to a prayer, and there are even other delegatory functions when the Minister, in taking executive action, is not subject to parliamentary checks of that kind. It is right to ask, and proper that we should be told, which powers will apply in the use of the executive authority obtained under the Bill.

Mr. Eyre: The hon. Gentleman expresses strong feelings on this score. I understand his feelings, but the question he raises is a matter of detail concerning the content of the Bill which could be examined in great detail and debated fully and properly during the Committee stage. This is a Second Reading debate to consider the general principles that apply in cases of this kind. The point which the hon. Gentleman raises is more specific and particular, and I suggest that it could be discussed in detail in Committee. The extension that I talk about relates to the international scale of the procedure that already applies and works in so many cases as apply now in the United Kingdom.
I come to the points raised by the hon. Member for Widnes (Mr. Oakes). He, too, placed strong emphasis on regional considerations with regard to acquisition. Undoubtedly they would be borne very much in mind. The hon. Gentleman went on to raise a point which I expected him to raise about ownership and title


and Crown property. Normally the property acquired would be Crown property and would continue to be Crown property. Therefore, the question he asked about rates would mean that the rating system, as applied to Crown property, would apply to these premises. It would only be in circumstances which were justified by the national interest that the ownership would be transferred to an international organisation.
I emphasise that naturally the Govern-would would protect and safeguard the national interest in any transfer of property. In most cases it is much more likely that the property would be taken as Crown property and would continue to be held as Crown property.

Mr. Freeson: That is the second time the Minister has laid stress on that point. There is a question which worries me even though it is something only prospectively on the horizon should the Bill be enacted. The hon. Gentleman talked about exceptions where property would be disposed of to international bodies in the national interest. That is a broad, loose phrase. Nevertheless, in the past—I am not clear on the position today—it has been general practice by Governments to offer buildings and sites surplus to their requirements first to Government Departments, and, when not required by any Government Department, to give first refusal to local authorities or other public services such as hospitals. Therefore, every opportunity is taken to use scarce land resources in certain areas for the public good before disposing of them privately.
The prospect of certain buildings being sold to international bodies removes that possibility in what may be in certain circumstances key sites or key areas in the country. I urge the Minister to give thought to this matter, and if he cannot give a clear answer now I ask him to reconsider what he says about the possibility at any time of selling these sites to international bodies. If we are to maintain the important practice I have outlined, which has been of great assistance to local authorities and Government Departments, it is essential that land does not cease to be Crown-held. There should be no question of disposal to the interests which occupy the buildings in the future.

Mr. Eyre: I should like to emphasise that the acquisition of the property would vest it in the Crown. I have taken note of the hon. Gentleman's serious views about any possible transfer. The property having been vested in the Crown, under the control and ownership of the Government, naturally the most careful consideration would be given to any international or local factors. The balance of interest in all cases would have to be carefully weighed. I assure the hon. Gentleman that the Government would consider carefully the comments he has made. He is posing what could be difficult and serious questions of judgment. The Government will approach the matter carefully and all the factors mentioned will be borne in mind.

Mr. Owen: May I ask just one question on something that has just been said. Would the Crown have power to reacquire the property at some future date if, it having disposed of the property, the property was used for an unsuitable purpose?

Mr. Eyre: Yes, indeed. The property being in the United Kingdom, it would naturally be subject to the Government's power compulsorily to acquire it at a later date.

Mr. Latham: I should like to make a final comment in a conciliatory mood, because I felt a little angry about one or two seemingly minor points which nevertheless have their importance. The Opposition have said that they do not propose to oppose the Bill. My hon. Friend the Member for Widnes (Mr. Oakes) described it as "probably useful." Having regard to what has been said by most hon. Members about a lack of adequate information about how the Bill will operate and the powers exercised, and particularly the relationship between this legislation and the three enactments referred to in the Bill, will the Minister agree to consider the circulation of a memorandum? That course might be helpful to the Committee after the Bill has received Second Reading. In that way some of the vagueness and difficulties might be clarified at the beginning and would expedite our proceedings.

Mr. Eyre: Naturally I should like to be as helpful as possible. I cannot give the hon. Gentleman that assurance, but I can tell him that the purpose this morning has been simply to have a Second


Reading debate on general principles. Many of the hon. Gentleman's observations relate to important matters of detail which will be discussed in greater detail in Committee. The hon. Gentleman will then be entitled to press those matters and to have full consideration given to them.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That the Chairman do now report to the House that the Committee recommend that the

THE FOLLOWING MEMBERS ATTENDED THE COMMITTEE:


Russell, Sir Ronald (Chairman)
Latham, Mr.


Benyon, Mr.
Mudd, Mr.


Dormand, Mr.
Oakes, Mr.


Eyre, Mr.
Owen, Mr. Idris


Fisher, Mrs. Doris
Reed, Mr. Laurance


Freeson, Mr.
Rhodes, Mr.


Hawkins, Mr.
Stott, Mr.


Hunt, Mr.
Tebbit, Mr.


Jones, Mr. Arthur
White, Mr. James

International Organisations (Land) Bill ought to be read a second time.

Mr. Eyre: On behalf of members of the Committee, Sir Ronald, I should like to thank you for the courtesy and efficiency with which you have presided over our proceedings.

The Chairman: I thank the Under-Secretary.

Committee rose at five minutes past Twelve o'clock.